Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:26pm PT
|
Which branch of the government is to "regulate" these militias? Why didn't The Constitution specify?
generally, those unstated details are left for the states to determine... which is why we are familiar with the idea of a "state militia"
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:29pm PT
|
So why are Obama and Biden trying to take charge, if it's something that's rightly left up to the states?
|
|
monolith
climber
albany,ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
|
Norway had only 5 gun homicides in 2005. The mass shooting of 2011 can hardly be used to indicate gun violence in Norway.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
|
Have you read a newspaper in the last couple of weeks?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
|
So why are Obama and Biden trying to take charge, if it's something that's rightly left up to the states?
"take charge"?
take charge of what, Chaz?
neither one of them can make laws, only congress can, but you knew that
calling together all the various groups in America from video gamers to the NRA to get their opinions and input as to what to SUGGEST to congress to "consider" for POSSIBLE future legislative ideas is NOT TAKING CHARGE
should congress do nothing, Chaz? Not consider any ideas from interested parties?
And it was CONGRESS that asked PRESIDENT Obama to take the "lead" after the recent slaughter, and to come up with "ideas" for CONGRESS to consider.
So really you should ask: Why is Congress taking charge?
|
|
tooth
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:47pm PT
|
That's why I didn't put a name on it. It isn't indicative of Norway as a whole, it is indicative of what happens when criminals go wild without worrying about being shot back at.
many here say that they aren't worried about reducing violence in general, just these mass murders. So that is what I was addressing.
We already know that violence in general will have more opportunity if we remove the chance that people can defend themselves at an equal level as the aggressor. Taking guns away will be stupid if we want to see overall violence decrease. It will be like the UK then. But at least we won't have multiple people getting shot all at once, right? Uh huh.
What will happen is another ban like the last one you had where barrel shrouds, or " shoulder thing which goes up - Carolyn McCarthy" are banned again.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:51pm PT
|
When the 2nd amendment was written, both the govt and the citizens had EXACTLY the same arms.
And no matter how hard you try, you will NEVER match the current government's fire power. Ergo, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is completely irrelevant and absurd... negating what follows.
Executive order... ABSUFUKINGLUTELY! It is about time the rest of us, who voted CLEARLY for Obama, stop being held hostage by the right-wing nut jobs who have UTTERLY DESTROYED what it means to be a conservative in this country.
|
|
tooth
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:53pm PT
|
I dont know about you mecrist, but I know many members of your military. Actually, I have signed off on the dental records that hundreds of them needed to get shipped out to Iraq. None of them I know well would side with you and use the equipment against their own liberties.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 11:58pm PT
|
You don't need many of them to. You just need the well paid ones at the top who can push the right buttons.
But here's the thing... either way, it is a bullshit argument. It ain't going to happen. The ONLY reason Uhmerikuhns NEED guns is for home protection. Nobody needs 2 guns every 5 months for that, so change the laws. Nobody needs an assault rifle, so change the laws. Nobody needs to order boxes and boxes and boxes of ammo and 30 round mags, and body armor, so....
The only argument they can come up with is "it won't work" which is the same chickensh#t, do nothing, felcherific they accuse congress of doing in the first place.
You can't defend against the US military (and you ain't going to need to).
So why not just shut the fuk up and AT LEAST TRY SOMETHING. Quit being a bunch of fuknards.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:01am PT
|
Weschrist writes:
"And no matter how hard you try, you will NEVER match the current government's fire power."
And exactly why in the hell would I ever WANT to?
Riddle me that, Weschrist.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:04am PT
|
Do you have a non-wiki source? I posted three. ( and I got a bunch more )
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:06am PT
|
There are countless text books out there (not blog cites) that clearly explain what executive orders are and how they work.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:06am PT
|
Can you post one? I posted three.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:15am PT
|
I would like an executive order that Ron is not allowed to drunk post.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:28am PT
|
Uh, because there ARE executive orders (it is true, look it up)... there ARE actions that can be taken. News flash, that's how our government WORKS. If you don't like it, move to Canada.
Here are a few past executive orders that date back to 1937, that should keep you busy for a little while:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:30am PT
|
Does an executive order over-rule The Constitution?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:35am PT
|
Does executive order trump the Bill Of Rights?
I don't think so.
What in The Constitution backs up your opinion? Can you cite it?
|
|
monolith
climber
albany,ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:38am PT
|
SCOTUS decides constitutionality. Or is it Chaz, I forget.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!