Obama signs law giving himself, Bush lifetime Secret Service

[madhatter]

Cute quote

You could issue 5 AR-15 rifles with 100 round clips to every citizen in the US and it would do absolutely nothing to stop the government from killing you if it wanted to.ya might wanna re-think that ( ok, just think for the first time through)

Only a delusional idiot would believe that they could protect themselves from the government with small arms. only a liberal would be so stupid as to make that uninformed statement ( or a braindead skier I suppose)That ability ended in this country about 100 years ago.

apparently you aren't too well versed on the vietnam conflict (60's-70's), or the soviet-afghanistan ( 70's-80's) conflict are you? Again this is WHY we have a Constitution, to prevent those without a clue from being enlisted as useful idiots to exact a pre-determined outcome, counter to the will of the free people and the founders of this country. Sucks being braindead huh? oh wait the braindead are always oblivious to the fact simply by the nature of the predicament itself...

maybe what we really need is an amendment preventing the stupid from voting...

[deadheadskier]

YAY, personal attacks from madhatter

Good luck with your AR when an F-15 launches a missile at your house.

[UVSHTSTRM]

I own a gun... I always have... I grew up with guns..

just not some stupid toy capable of killing an entire classroom of children..

What kind of gun do you own and why do you own a gun? Just curious.

[DMC]

I own a gun... I always have... I grew up with guns..

just not some stupid toy capable of killing an entire classroom of children..

What kind of gun do you own and why do you own a gun? Just curious.

22 rifle - Grandfather gave it to me. Family heirloom.
We used to shoot muskrats that dug holes on the banks of our pond as a kid.
I mainly shoot cans with it now... But would use it if I had to chase a bear away with some rubber bullets..

[DMC]

Fine... If thats the way you want to go..
Guns SHOULD be treated like cars.. You should register all guns... License all guns.. Need to take a test to shoot a gun.. Have guns inspected once a year.. Have a minimum age that a person can shoot a gun... Every gun should be insured too.. And if you violate any of these rules - your licensee gets suspended or your guns get impounded...

[Bubba]

Fine... If thats the way you want to go..
Guns SHOULD be treated like cars.. You should register all guns... License all guns.. Need to take a test to shoot a gun.. Have guns inspected once a year.. Have a minimum age that a person can shoot a gun... Every gun should be insured too.. And if you violate any of these rules - your licensee gets suspended or your guns get impounded...

And therein lies the difference between a privilege and a constituional right. Driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. The state can regulate your privilege - test you, retest you, limit the size of the engine you drive, limit the speed at which you drive it, etc. The state, however, has no such power over a constitutional right unless the state shows a substantial reason that a right should be limited.

[DMC]

The state, however, has no such power over a constitutional right unless the state shows a substantial reason that a right should be limited.

That's the next step... The states....

[madhatter]

Cute quote

You could issue 5 AR-15 rifles with 100 round clips to every citizen in the US and it would do absolutely nothing to stop the government from killing you if it wanted to.

Only a delusional idiot would believe that they could protect themselves from the government with small arms. That ability ended in this country about 100 years ago.

YAY, personal attacks from madhatter???????

Good luck with your AR when an F-15 launches a missile at your house.so you imagine the gov is going to attack individual houses w f-15's? one by one? neighborhood by neighborhood? just mine? have you ever read any history? do you follow current events at all? just go ski or something and leave the important issues to those more appropriately equipped.

typical braindead liberal @sshat, offers stupidity and insults then gets all butthurt and offended when responded to in kind, lybocrite... you reap what you sow...

FYI - I don't own a AR-15

[Bubba]

The state, however, has no such power over a constitutional right unless the state shows a substantial reason that a right should be limited.

That's the next step... The states....

I'm sure you recognize that the reference to "the state" had nothing to do with the individual states. But if, as you say, the next step is "the states", any laws passed by those states will still have to pass constitutional muster. So...what's your point?

[deadheadskier]

Cute quote

You could issue 5 AR-15 rifles with 100 round clips to every citizen in the US and it would do absolutely nothing to stop the government from killing you if it wanted to.

Only a delusional idiot would believe that they could protect themselves from the government with small arms. That ability ended in this country about 100 years ago.

YAY, personal attacks from madhatter???????

Good luck with your AR when an F-15 launches a missile at your house.so you imagine the gov is going to attack individual houses w f-15's? one by one? neighborhood by neighborhood? just mine? have you ever read any history? do you follow current events at all? just go ski or something and leave the important issues to those more appropriately equipped.

typical braindead liberal @sshat, offers stupidity and insults then gets all butthurt and offended when responded to in kind, lybocrite... you reap what you sow...

FYI - I don't own a AR-15

1st off, my term delusional idiot wasn't directed at you specifically, it was a general reference to 2nd Amendment heroes who think they can take on the US government army with small arms. Though, looking at it now, I can see how you would read it as me calling you specifically an idiot.

2nd, if you don't like the F-15 reference, then go ahead and try and take on a platoon carrying Browning 50 Caliber Machine Guns mounted on armored vehicles. You and your family would be blown away before you got off three rounds.

Regarding my reading of history?

Vietnam casualties:

US forces: 58K
Vietnamese: 1M soldiers and approximately 4M civilians

The only reason why the casualties weren't even more lopsided is because the USSR and China were supplying North Vietnam with weaponry.

Soviet/Afghan war casualities:

Soviet forces: 15K
Afghan forces: Approximately 1M

The only reason why the casualties weren't even more lopsided is because the US was supplying the Mujahideen with weapons.

In both wars, the US and Soviets withdrew because of politics. It wasn't because their armies weren't fully capable of annihilating the opposition. The numbers speak for themselves.

If you want to argue 2nd amendment rights for home protection, by all means do so. However, arguing that the right is important as a hedge against government tyranny is horse$hit in today's world. It wasn't when the Constitution was written and the playing field of weaponry was even between civilians and government. That even playing field ended well over 100 years ago.

But, by all means keep thinking yourself the pb equipped badass with your cute Madhatter cartoon profile pic with bullet riddled dead people behind you. Your last name wouldn't be Koresh by chance?

[madhatter]

Cute quote

You could issue 5 AR-15 rifles with 100 round clips to every citizen in the US and it would do absolutely nothing to stop the government from killing you if it wanted to.

Only a delusional idiot would believe that they could protect themselves from the government with small arms. That ability ended in this country about 100 years ago.

YAY, personal attacks from madhatter???????

Good luck with your AR when an F-15 launches a missile at your house.so you imagine the gov is going to attack individual houses w f-15's? one by one? neighborhood by neighborhood? just mine? have you ever read any history? do you follow current events at all? just go ski or something and leave the important issues to those more appropriately equipped.

typical braindead liberal @sshat, offers stupidity and insults then gets all butthurt and offended when responded to in kind, lybocrite... you reap what you sow...

FYI - I don't own a AR-15

1st off, my term delusional idiot wasn't directed at you specifically, it was a general reference to 2nd Amendment heroes who think they can take on the US government army with small arms. Though, looking at it now, I can see how you would read it as me calling you specifically an idiot.

2nd, if you don't like the F-15 reference, then go ahead and try and take on a platoon carrying Browning 50 Caliber Machine Guns mounted on armored vehicles. You and your family would be blown away before you got off three rounds.

Regarding my reading of history?

Vietnam casualties:

US forces: 58K
Vietnamese: 1M soldiers and approximately 4M civilians

The only reason why the casualties weren't even more lopsided is because the USSR and China were supplying North Vietnam with weaponry.

Soviet/Afghan war casualities:

Soviet forces: 15K
Afghan forces: Approximately 1M

The only reason why the casualties weren't even more lopsided is because the US was supplying the Mujahideen with weapons.

In both wars, the US and Soviets withdrew because of politics. It wasn't because their armies weren't fully capable of annihilating the opposition. The numbers speak for themselves.gee in both cases they left, without killing every person there, why? I suppose they could have nuked it into oblivion , but they didn't. They could have strafed the entire country side w missiles, they didn't. The goal was never to destroy the country and its entire population.

If you want to argue 2nd amendment rights for home protection, by all means do so. However, arguing that the right is important as a hedge against government tyranny is horse$hit in today's world. It wasn't when the Constitution was written and the playing field of weaponry was even between civilians and government. That even playing field ended well over 100 years ago.that's what the british thought about a bunch of farmers over 200 years ago, turns out they were wrong.

But, by all means keep thinking yourself the pb equipped badass with your cute Madhatter cartoon profile pic with bullet riddled dead people behind you. you can imagine me as anything you like. Seems you've already conjured up quite the story.Your last name wouldn't be Koresh by chance?
the 2nd amendment is a RIGHT, period. Its meaning, intention, relevance vs current technology etc is irrelevant. It is a right that shall not be infringed. Yes, of course the most powerful state backed military's of the world could easily annihilate the entire population of a country if they so desired, but is that likely? What purpose would it serve? What would be left to "conquer'? Who says that a threat will come from the full force of the US military? or any other military? Do you really think the US govt could control the entire populace if there was a breakdown of the rule of law or a financial collapse, major environmental devastation etc? If the gov were to turn on the population and begin to wipe it out w f-15's and missiles, how much would that cost? where would the funding come from? All the civilians under threat are still going to show up for work eery day to provide the support and logistics to carry this out? Or do you imagine our military is 100% self supported? Why should the current generation forfeit that right to bear arms for future generations?

[madhatter]

[shortski]

Guns SHOULD be treated like cars.. You should register all guns... License all guns.. Need to take a test to shoot a gun.. Have guns inspected once a year.. Have a minimum age that a person can shoot a gun... Every gun should be insured too.. And if you violate any of these rules - your licensee gets suspended or your guns get impounded...

Free speech should be treated like guns, you must be registered to express your opinion, you must be licensed to speak, need to submit all intended speaking for approval, can't have those long run on sentences. If you can't say it under ten words don't say it who needs more than ten word to express their views.....Need a test to make sure your capable of clear expression....and retested every year. Have a minimum age and minimum IQ in order to be licensed to express views. Everyone should be required to have speaking insurance just in case you libel or slander someone...if you break any of the rules you lose your license to speak your views and your tongue will be taken away.

Ya know after subjecting myself to liberal views I think my proposal would do a lot more in getting this country back on the right track. After all isn't the pen mightier than the sword or gun.

[DMC]

hey - I'm not the idiot that compared a method of transportation to an assault weapon ...

[shortski]

hey - I'm not the idiot that compared a method of transportation to an assault weapon ...

No you're the "idiot:" (you choice of words not mine) who can't understand what a right is.

All rights are the same don't want them don't use them but leave the rest of us alone. And that's the rub. You liberals can't get it through you thick heads that the majority of people don't want more government oversight of their everyday lives. That crap about taking a village is so long and rightfully dead.

DMC be careful for what you wish. The last time the liberals screwed with the second amendment they lost both the house and senate in the following mid term elections. History will repeat itself if the proposals I've seen be bantered about are passed. With a takeover of both houses the republicans can effectively cripple Obama and as a statement repeal Obamacare while they're at it. Do you think Obama is going to take a chance on his legacy to put in place laws that will be overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional , like most of the laws that were passed under Clinton? (Rhetorical question no answer required)