Impeach Gov. Andrew Cuomo 4 violating New Yorker's 2nd Amendment

ax1

ax1

Legend
My thoughts....Petitioning for Obama to impeach Cuomo is like asking the Japanese to stop dropping chemicals on the Chinese during WWII.

Anyways, these petitions imo are about getting the word out, and a message which can lead to other things so I think its good to sign them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

We petition the obama administration to:

Impeach Governor Andrew Cuomo

Andrew Cuomo has violated our 2nd amendment rights more than any other elected official before him. We sacrifice enough rights as it is in New York State, and we are now being penalized and law abiding citizens now felons, because of sick individuals in other states.

Created: Jan 15, 2013

Sign here on official Whitehouse website...

Invalid Link Removed

We need 25,000 signatures by the 14th of February.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More info.... Another petition

On January 15th, 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomo dealt a major blow to your second amendment rights. His new firearms bill will cost the state millions in new registration databases and enforcement, cost dealers thousands in absurd record keeping and make you a criminal for possessing the same firearms you owned legally on January 14th, 2013. All of these additional costs will burden the consumer and the tax payer. The new law will do nothing to curb gun violence or stop a mass murder. But those who voted for it and the Governor do not care; they don´t want you to own firearms PERIOD. Not only does this measure trample the very Constitution he swore to uphold, but it was rushed through in the middle of the night. The bill was not released to the public before it was voted on and Cuomo waived the mandatory three day cooling off period before forcing a vote. He is a treasonous tyrant who is out of control. Sign the petition below to impeach this man and restore our once great State from the top down.


Get Involved:


  1. Join Class Action Lawsuit Against Gun Control
    A class action lawsuit is beeing coordinated against NYS regarding New Jan 2013 Gun Control Measures
    Invalid Link Removed
  2. Sign Legislative Petition:
    Sign Senator Kathleen Marchione´s Petition to Repeal and Replace the restrictive new Gun Control Measures
    Invalid Link Removed
  3. March Against Gun Control in Albany
    [TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 100, align: right"]Where: [/TD]
    [TD]NY State Capitol - Capitol Building, State Street, Albany, NY 12230[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]When: [/TD]
    [TD]High Noon, Saturday, Jan. 19th 2013[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]Why: [/TD]
    [TD]To show support of our Second Amendment Right[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]Link: [/TD]
    [TD]Invalid Link Removed[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

Sign Petition Here
Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
My thoughts....Petitioning for Obama to impeach Cuomo is like asking the Japanese to stop dropping chemicals on the Chinese during WWII.

Anyways, these petitions imo are about getting the word out, and a message which can lead to other things so I think its good to sign them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

We petition the obama administration to:

Impeach Governor Andrew Cuomo

Andrew Cuomo has violated our 2nd amendment rights more than any other elected official before him. We sacrifice enough rights as it is in New York State, and we are now being penalized and law abiding citizens now felons, because of sick individuals in other states.

Created: Jan 15, 2013

Sign here on official Whitehouse website...

Invalid Link Removed

We need 25,000 signatures by the 14th of February.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More info.... Another petition

On January 15th, 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomo dealt a major blow to your second amendment rights. His new firearms bill will cost the state millions in new registration databases and enforcement, cost dealers thousands in absurd record keeping and make you a criminal for possessing the same firearms you owned legally on January 14th, 2013. All of these additional costs will burden the consumer and the tax payer. The new law will do nothing to curb gun violence or stop a mass murder. But those who voted for it and the Governor do not care; they don´t want you to own firearms PERIOD. Not only does this measure trample the very Constitution he swore to uphold, but it was rushed through in the middle of the night. The bill was not released to the public before it was voted on and Cuomo waived the mandatory three day cooling off period before forcing a vote. He is a treasonous tyrant who is out of control. Sign the petition below to impeach this man and restore our once great State from the top down.


Get Involved:


  1. Join Class Action Lawsuit Against Gun Control
    A class action lawsuit is beeing coordinated against NYS regarding New Jan 2013 Gun Control Measures
    Invalid Link Removed
  2. Sign Legislative Petition:
    Sign Senator Kathleen Marchione´s Petition to Repeal and Replace the restrictive new Gun Control Measures
    Invalid Link Removed
  3. March Against Gun Control in Albany
    [TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 100, align: right"]Where: [/TD]
    [TD]NY State Capitol - Capitol Building, State Street, Albany, NY 12230[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]When: [/TD]
    [TD]High Noon, Saturday, Jan. 19th 2013[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]Why: [/TD]
    [TD]To show support of our Second Amendment Right[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]Link: [/TD]
    [TD]Invalid Link Removed[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

Sign Petition Here
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

do i have to live in NY to sign?? i dont like cuomo, and im willing to help in anyway that i can when it comes to the constitution
 
MANotaur said:
do i have to live in NY to sign?? i dont like cuomo, and im willing to help in anyway that i can when it comes to the constitution
Click to expand...

You can sign...this is an American issue, not just a NY issue. All support is appreciated.

Im not even a gun owner, never been a gun owner and dont plan to be, but Im all out for supporting our second amendment and personal freedom for choice of protection (with some regulation of course, nukes for example should stay banned, lol)
 
What is the new law?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
ax1 said:
You can sign...this is an American issue, not just a NY issue. All support is appreciated.

Im not even a gun owner, never been a gun owner and dont plan to be, but Im all out for supporting our second amendment and personal freedom for choice of protection (with some regulation of course, nukes for example should stay banned, lol)
Click to expand...

lol i agree with the nukes...but cruise and AGM-114 missles, open to the public! if you can front the cash, you can have the stash!
 
JudoJosh said:
What is the new law?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

They are the toughest laws in the country so far, Im awaiting for whats next.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
I used to live in the NYC area. For me to even possess a firearm in my household when I lived there I have to fill out the forms for it, pay 600 non refundable dollars (mind you it's a MAY issue state) and appear for an interview at the NYPD headquarters in Manhatten. I understand the reasons for heavily regulating firearms. I get it. It shouldn't be so heavily regulated to where a law abiding citizen is unable to even possess a firearm inside of their own home though.

Signed.
 
ax1 said:
They are the toughest laws in the country so far, Im awaiting for whats next.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
Ya know tyrannical government and all that. I often see the word being bandied about...impeachment. The process for impeachment, meaning the requirements needed in order to gain a conviction will NEVER occur in this case.
 
JudoJosh said:
Seems reasonable

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Depends on your point of view...some people think its reasonable and some people feel the opposite thats why the country is divided on the issue and we have a debate.
 
ax1 said:
Depends on your point of view...some people think its reasonable and some people feel the opposite thats why the country is divided on the issue and we have a debate.
Click to expand...

You realize that these types of petitions are useless correct? That's not how the impeachment process works...
 
southpaw23 said:
Not in the "tinfoil" world. They think Mel Gibson works for the government and is rebuilding the death star.
Click to expand...

Yes Southpaw, and Michael Moore eats children while dancing naked upside down so he can drink his own semen while Obama sits next to him drooling on his kill list.
 
southpaw23 said:
You realize that these types of petitions are useless correct? That's not how the impeachment process works...
Click to expand...

They are not useless. Did I not say at the very top of my first post that nobody is getting impeached, "Anyways, these petitions imo are about getting the word out, and a message which can lead to other things so I think its good to sign them."

It was because of a similar petition that caused a firestorm to bring Alex Jones on mainstream television to eat Peirs Morgans brains out. People arent going to remember what Piers said...but whether they agree or not, they will remember what Alex said. Alex never intended for Piers Morgan to be deported.
 
southpaw23 said:
Not in the "tinfoil" world. They think Mel Gibson works for the government and is rebuilding the death star.
Click to expand...

Sadly the death star petition got denied

Invalid Link Removed

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
ax1 said:
They are not useless. Did I not say at the very top of my first post that nobody is getting impeached, "Anyways, these petitions imo are about getting the word out, and a message which can lead to other things so I think its good to sign them."

It was because of a similar petition that caused a firestorm to bring Alex Jones on mainstream television to eat Peirs Morgans brains out. People arent going to remember what Piers said...but whether they agree or not, they will remember what Alex said. Alex never intended for Piers Morgan to be deported.
Click to expand...

Ah yes the AJ meltdown which ONLY you are capable of spinning into ..."eat Peirs Morgans brains out." Lol.
 
Invalid Link Removed

LOL..

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
Proof: The Founders Wanted Americans Armed

The 2nd Amendment is in place to discourage dictators and protect the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 22, 2012

The Founding Fathers agree: an armed population makes good government. Numerous quotes from the revolutionary era make their intent extremely clear — that individuals were meant to keep and bear arms for the protection of the country and the defense of its Constitution and Bill of Rights.



The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explicitly states that these amendments to the Constitution were put in place to restrain the federal government and discourage abuse. Ratified Dec. 15, 1791, it reads:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. “


​
Meanwhile, history has shown that disarmed populations and dictators always go hand in hand, with abusers and seekers of power preferring a people unable to stand up for their rights and easy to trample and dominate.

Our birthright as Americans is at stake: if we don’t stand up to defend the 2nd Amendment, we stand to let all our other precious rights slip away, from freedom of speech on down.
————-
“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” - Joseph Stalin

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” - Anonymous American adage

“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” 
– Samuel Adams

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…” – Tench Coxe 1788

“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” - Joseph Stalin

“In earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.” - Zbigniew Brzezinski

“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.” - Joseph Stalin

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” - Joseph Stalin

“The only real power comes out of a long rifle.” - Joseph Stalin

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” 
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” - Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
” –Thomas Paine

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
” – Ben Franklin

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” - Joseph Stalin

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 
– Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” – Patrick Henry

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” 
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – George Mason

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” 
– Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

“The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.” - Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War”, July, 1775

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong, “Problems of War and Strategy”, 1938

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee, 1778

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” - Hubert Humphrey, “Know Your Lawmakers”, Guns magazine, February 1960

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” - Adolf Hitler, April 1942

“If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.” - Orrin Hatch, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” – William S. Burroughs, 1991

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
- George Washington

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution
 
Does the NY law propose that no one can own any gun? Or does it set limits and restrictions on specific guns?

The fallacy with that article is it equates regulations with total disarment. You are still allowed firearms in the state of NY therefore they still have the right to bear arms, no?

Either way the constitutional stance is a weak one as it assumes an archaic document is somehow infallible and relevant some hundreds of years later. That stance (tradition) is one someone takes when they can't articulate a rationale and objective argument for their beliefs.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
Stalin is a founding father? Didn't realize. Lol


Seriously though...this bill does not violate the constitution. People still have their right. Sorry ax
 
JudoJosh said:
Does the NY law propose that no one can own any gun? Or does it set limits and restrictions on specific guns?

The fallacy with that article is it equates regulations with total disarment. You are still allowed firearms in the state of NY therefore they still have the right to bear arms, no?

Either way the constitutional stance is a weak one as it assumes an archaic document is somehow infallible and relevant some hundreds of years later. That stance (tradition) is one someone takes when they can't articulate a rationale and objective argument for their beliefs.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Yes, in NYC its extemely difficult to get a gun even for your own home. Post # 7 of this thread is one example. You cant get a concealed permit where I live (Southern tier NY) even if you have a total clean background check. I personally dont own a gun and not seeking one, but I find it offensive to my personal liberty as someone who doesnt cause trouble that If I apply for a carry on (because the fact is I may need one) I cant get one. If people dont fight for their rights the trend only makes things more difficult.

Background checks in NY (and those being proposed by Obama) may strip non-violent offenders of their 2nd amendment. Also anyone deemed "potentially problematic" by doctors or psychiatrists will have both their 2nd and 5th amendment rights stripped as psychiatrists and doctors are being "cop like" authority.

Limits that were already in place that were strict are getting stricter. For example now all law abiding citizens who have magazine >7 must sell them out of state, permanently modify them or surrender to law enforcement. As we know, criminals will not take part in this, only good people are. The law turns law abiding citizens into criminals. And even with good intent, what does this solve? Its totally meaningless.

There is nothing archaic about citizens having the freedom to arm themselves to protect themselves from criminals, government tyranny and foreign invasion. Democracies are always prone to a tyrannical takeover (Germany and Hitler for example) or a coup (Prescott Bush's attempt on Roosevelt,) foreign invasion is always possible, and criminals will never go away and get ahead when civilians lose their arms.

There is nothing archaic about the Constitution, but more particularly my interest is protecting The Bill of Rights is which is every bit as relevant as it could have ben 1000 years ago if it existed then, every bit relevant 250 years ago, every bit relevant today and it will be every bit relevant 500 years into the future.
 
AE14 said:
Stalin is a founding father? Didn't realize. Lol


Seriously though...this bill does not violate the constitution. People still have their right. Sorry ax
Click to expand...

Im already personally stripped of my rights....I cant have a concealed (why does it have to be concealed anyways?), and my family in the city cant carry a gun and also have a handgun in their home...and yes my mother has been mugged, and her apartment robbed in the city several times so this means alot to me.
 
I'll simply repeat a line that you often toss out whenever I offer a counterpoint...."But you can't save everyone." "Oh but dat der constitution." Thomas Jefferson advocated strongly in his letters to Madison, that the constitution should remain a living document, reviewed every 19 years and revised to meet the needs of its current generation, not to be shackled by the needs of prior generations. He was ahead of his time.
 
southpaw23 said:
I'll just repeat a line that you often toss out whenever I offer a counterpoint...."But you can't save everyone." "Oh but dat der constitution." Thomas Jefferson advocated strongly in his letters to Madison, that the constitution should remain a living document, reviewed every 19 years and revised to meet the needs of its current generation, not to be shackled by the needs of prior generations. He was ahead of his time.
Click to expand...

i will counter you by saying that yes...it was meant to be a living document and changed as needed, but the bill of rights never was meant to be changed as they were a set of 10 inalienable rights that were endowed upon us by our creator. The second amendment, the right to bear arms, which translates to the right to defend ourselves, should never be touched nor infringed upon. The consitution is not a a list of shalls for the citizens, its a list of SHALL NOTS for the govt, it was put in place to limit the power of govt, not the people.
 
MANotaur said:
i will counter you by saying that yes...it was meant to be a living document and changed as needed, but the bill of rights never was meant to be changed as they were a set of 10 inalienable rights that were endowed upon us by our creator. The second amendment, the right to bear arms, which translates to the right to defend ourselves, should never be touched nor infringed upon. The consitution is not a a list of shalls for the citizens, its a list of SHALL NOTS for the govt, it was put in place to limit the power of govt, not the people.
Click to expand...

And yet you still have the right to bear arms....
 
southpaw23 said:
And yet you still have the right to bear arms....
Click to expand...

Thats not true...the current regime gives restrictions on who, what, where and when you have the right to bear arms.

Incrementally out Bill of Rights continues to be stripped away.
 
ax1 said:
Thats not true...the current regime gives restrictions on who, what, where and when you have the right to bear arms.

Incrementally out Bill of Rights continues to be stripped away.
Click to expand...

Who is excluded from purchasing/owning firearms?
 
This is all kind of a moot argument.

The new laws being proposed are not sensible.

At least not in light of the bill of right, intentions of the second amendment, doctor patient confidentiality as well as the innocent until proven guilty portion of our rights.

First of all, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self defense or hunting.. people that throw that argument around needs to revisit their social studies classes in grade school. The 2nd amendment is well explained in the federalist papers as the last line of defense of a power hungry tyrannical government, which is why they define the militia as all able bodied men. The last stand against an overpowering centralized government, ensuring the freedom of the people was never taken away. Which is why they state that the right to bear arms shall never be infringed.

The new EOs signed by the President state to examine the HIPPA laws and ensure they have no privacy for Gun owners. Essentially the doc can tell big brother about gun owners. As well as the proposed National Gun Registry. That essentially labels each gun owner as a person of interest well before every committing any crimes.

People are relying on their Government as their personal baby sitter way to much. Personal liberty and responsibility are the people's to lose. And we are doing a damn good job of it.

The 2nd amendment is the only protectionary amendment to ensure the Gov. works for the people, by the people. Remove that protective layer and it can easily turn the tables the other way. The Constitution is a living document, but was never intended to be stripped of protections as people see fit.

Placing limits on the second amendment is the same as telling an artist what they can and cannot portray as art.

The entire debate is pointing fingers, and both sides are looking to limit your rights. Left wants to limit what they deem acceptable parts of the 2nd amendment, and right wants to limit what the entertainment industry can deliver to the American public via media and video games... an attack against the first amendment.

Why are people not more angry that they are now? Maybe it was taking the oath of enlistment that hits it so close to home, but people are too lackadaisical in giving up freedoms for the sake of giving themselves that warm and fuzzy.
 
Respect your position, as there is an argument to be made on both sides. My question again is, who is excluded from purchasing/owning a firearm. I notice when I pose that question, it takes quite a long time to get back here with the answers. I guess the Alex Jones site must be down.
 
southpaw23 said:
Respect your position, as there is an argument to be made on both sides. My question again is, who is excluded from purchasing/owning a firearm. I notice when I pose that question, it takes quite a long time to get back here with the answers. I guess the Alex Jones site must be down.
Click to expand...

Quoted to come back to during my lunch break.
 
JudoJosh said:
Either way the constitutional stance is a weak one as it assumes an archaic document is somehow infallible and relevant some hundreds of years later. That stance (tradition) is one someone takes when they can't articulate a rationale and objective argument for their beliefs.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S(TM)II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Statements like this are the most idiotic and destructive of any kind. so since its a few hundred years later man kind has evolved into a super race that is peaceful and has no need for weapons? Maybe since were so much more advanced then the founders we don't need court systems. Since we have tv to tell us whats right and wrong maybe we should get rid of freadom of speech.
the constitutional stance is not weak, it is my countries belief and my belief.

What would you consider to be a rational argument. Maybe the fact that I am an able body american man, who wants to be ready to protect his country at a moments notice, but I feel like prosuing a carrier outside of the military.

I have the available income to buy an assult rifle, and I don't have any criminal convictions.

The american prison system is already overwhelmed, why add more unnecessary laws that would lead to the conviction of tax payers who fund the system.

The act of ceasing all of these weapons and inforcing the new laws would put a huge strain on the already exhausted national budget.

Theres four reasons for you.
 
Bigcountry08 said:
Statements like this are the most idiotic and destructive of any kind. so since its a few hundred years later man kind has evolved into a super race that is peaceful and has no need for weapons? Maybe since were so much more advanced then the founders we don't need court systems. Since we have tv to tell us whats right and wrong maybe we should get rid of freadom of speech.
the constitutional stance is not weak, it is my countries belief and my belief.

What would you consider to be a rational argument. Maybe the fact that I am an able body american man, who wants to be ready to protect his country at a moments notice, but I feel like prosuing a carrier outside of the military.

I have the available income to buy an assult rifle, and I don't have any criminal convictions.

The american prison system is already overwhelmed, why add more unnecessary laws that would lead to the conviction of tax payers who fund the system.

The act of ceasing all of these weapons and inforcing the new laws would put a huge strain on the already exhausted national budget.

Theres four reasons for you.
Click to expand...

One question. If it's such an idiotic statement, why then did Thomas Jefferson advocate for the review/revision of the Constitution every 19 years? Are you inferring that Thomas Jefferson's stance on the Constitution was "Un-American?"
 
southpaw23 said:
Respect your position, as there is an argument to be made on both sides. My question again is, who is excluded from purchasing/owning a firearm. I notice when I pose that question, it takes quite a long time to get back here with the answers. I guess the Alex Jones site must be down.
Click to expand...

I unfortunately got denied at one point due to having a security clearance... Ironic.

Why the NICS system denies people is not well published. What is supposed to be the only limits are people underage and of violent crimes. Which we all know has been trampled on by multiple metro area's. In Chicago they had a 28 year ban on hand guns completely, a blatant disregard to what is supposed to be an inalienable right.

What people don't understand is the proposed legislation by Ms. Dianne is infringing on a civil right.
[SIZE=-1]
"Civil Right" [SIZE=-1]-[/SIZE] a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality.

This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.[/SIZE] Meaning limiting what make and model of rifle a citizen wishes to possess is a complete disregarding of a civil right.

I am not one to say the world is going to end tomorrow on this debate alone.. but allowing one more freedom to be restricted to those who believe they know better is just allowing Big Brother to run your lives.

I don't care if Hollywood makes another violent movie or GaGa wears her damn Abrams tank bra on stage... but I sure as well would stand next to them just to allow them to do so. Regardless of ones personal feelings on a subject, allowing freedoms to be restricted for any reason should be looked down upon with disgust.
 
southpaw23 said:
One question. If it's such an idiotic statement, why then did Thomas Jefferson advocate for the review/revision of the Constitution every 19 years?
Click to expand...

for reasons such as prohibition, slaver, womens suffrage, minority suffrage and the like, all of which restore rights to citizens not strip them or make it unreasonable for them to exercise those freedoms and rights
 
MANotaur said:
for reasons such as prohibition, slaver, womens suffrage, minority suffrage and the like, all of which restore rights to citizens not strip them or make it unreasonable for them to exercise those freedoms and rights
Click to expand...

And you're getting that information from where exactly? Read in length, Thomas Jefferson's letters to Madison.
 
southpaw23 said:
One question. If it's such an idiotic statement, why then did Thomas Jefferson advocate for the review/revision of the Constitution every 19 years? Are you inferring that Thomas Jefferson's stance on the Constitution was "Un-American?"
Click to expand...

I don't find that idiotic at all.

Problem is we haven't done so. I took an oath to protect our Constitution of the US... if that is replaced with another Constitution, then that will be the one to be protected.

It is the people's choice on how to proceed with the government. Instead of rewriting it, our previous generations just amended it to fit the current climate. Should we begin the process of getting 50 states to ratify a new consitution to fit our new climate, I am all for that. As long as peoples voices are heard.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to wipe out the laws of the land completely and start fresh.. considering some of the albatross laws out there today. Like jail time for non violent crimes like smoking a little dope.. come on now.
 
southpaw23 said:
And you're getting that information from where exactly? Read in length, Thomas Jefferson's letters to Madison.
Click to expand...

from history...you should learn some ;) its completely applicable to what jefferson was refering too in his letters to madison. and yes ihave all of his letters to madison, leather bound! they smell great when theyre open on my mahagony desk.
 
DAdams91982 said:
I unfortunately got denied at one point due to having a security clearance... Ironic.

Why the NICS system denies people is not well published. What is supposed to be the only limits are people underage and of violent crimes. Which we all know has been trampled on by multiple metro area's. In Chicago they had a 28 year ban on hand guns completely, a blatant disregard to what is supposed to be an inalienable right.

What people don't understand is the proposed legislation by Ms. Dianne is infringing on a civil right.
[SIZE=-1]
"Civil Right" [SIZE=-1]-[/SIZE] a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality.

This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.[/SIZE] Meaning limiting what make and model of rifle a citizen wishes to possess is a complete disregarding of a civil right.

I am not one to say the world is going to end tomorrow on this debate alone.. but allowing one more freedom to be restricted to those who believe they know better is just allowing Big Brother to run your lives.

I don't care if Hollywood makes another violent movie or GaGa wears her damn Abrams tank bra on stage... but I sure as well would stand next to them just to allow them to do so. Regardless of ones personal feelings on a subject, allowing freedoms to be restricted for any reason should be looked down upon with disgust.
Click to expand...

You mean the proposed ban on assault weapons/capacity limitations? Even with those restrictions in place, provided that one meets the basic requirements, they can go out purchase firearms. When taking into account person to person sales of firearms, in addition to gun show purchases, background checks are rarely if ever performed/enforced in these instances. That's a problem, not a limitation of freedoms.
 
DAdams91982 said:
I don't find that idiotic at all.

Problem is we haven't done so. I took an oath to protect our Constitution of the US... if that is replaced with another Constitution, then that will be the one to be protected.

.
Click to expand...

you bastard! are you a lawmaker?!?! lol
are you helping the problem or adding to it??
 
DAdams91982 said:
I don't find that idiotic at all.

Problem is we haven't done so. I took an oath to protect our Constitution of the US... if that is replaced with another Constitution, then that will be the one to be protected.

It is the people's choice on how to proceed with the government. Instead of rewriting it, our previous generations just amended it to fit the current climate. Should we begin the process of getting 50 states to ratify a new consitution to fit our new climate, I am all for that. As long as peoples voices are heard.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to wipe out the laws of the land completely and start fresh.. considering some of the albatross laws out there today. Like jail time for non violent crimes like smoking a little dope.. come on now.
Click to expand...

The process for seeking/implementing amendments to the Constitution are overly cumbersome, to the point that in this political climate, it's nearly impossible. There is a reason why there have been so few amendments made to the Constitution since its inception, and that was by design, unfortunately.
 
southpaw23 said:
The process for seeking/implementing amendments to the Constitution are overly cumbersome, to the point that in this political climate, it's nearly impossible. There is a reason why there have been so few amendments made to the Constitution, and that was by design, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

as it should be, the constituion was to protect the rights of the civilians, not add to the power of the govt. I dont understand why its unfortunate.
 
MANotaur said:
as it should be, the constituion was to protect the rights of the civilians, not add to the power of the govt. I dont understand why its unfortunate.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that a document written hundreds of years ago, remains inflexible and is viewed by some as being infallible, contrary to what Jefferson himself advocated at the time.
 
i never said it was infallable, neither did jefferson, hence why he wrote his letters to madison. but jefferson was also an advocate of personal liberties and freedoms, and he knew that the constitution wasnt perfect nor comprehensive. he advocated a review of the consitution to make sure that ALL citizens have EVERY GOD GIVEN RIGHT available to them and that it would NOT BE INFRINGED UPON, be it by means of obsessive and undue legislation,or the govt creating laws to prevent these rights, hence my comment about slavery, suffrage, and so on and so forth
 
MANotaur said:
i never said it was infallable, neither did jefferson, hence why he wrote his letters to madison. but jefferson was also an advocate of personal liberties and freedoms, and he knew that the constitution wasnt perfect nor comprehensive. he advocated a review of the consitution to make sure that ALL citizens have EVERY GOD GIVEN RIGHT available to them and that it would NOT BE INFRINGED UPON, be it by means of obsessive and undue legislation,or the govt creating laws to prevent these rights, hence my comment about slavery, suffrage, and so on and so forth
Click to expand...

No, no and no. He advocated for the review and revision of the Constitution equating it to generational evolution, meaning that the Constitution should reflect the "current" needs of the "current" generation as to avoid being enslaved by the ideals of prior generations. You're interpreting your own meaning and intent behind the words in his letter, rather than letting the words speak for themselves.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

"etween society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . . y the law of nature, one generation is [therefore] to another as one independent nation to another."
 
Jefferson examined the question of re-constitution especially closely. In his letter to Madison, he occasionally supplements his 'entailed estate' description of intergenerational relations with a description based more on the concepts and language of international law:
"etween society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . . y the law of nature, one generation is [therefore] to another as one independent nation to another." Invalid Link Removed
​
Just as the entailed estate analogy, with its terminology of usufruct and waste, lends itself to issues of land use and property rights, the national sovereignty analogy is well suited to the analysis of power, control, and authority issues which arise between generations. To characterize generations as separate nations is to impliedly reject any generation's authority to legislate for a later generation. The analogy almost presupposes Jefferson's conclusion: that no constitution or law can be perpetual, that every constitution and law requires periodic re-ratification to remain effective.

Jefferson maintains that re-ratification of constitutions and other legislation is required once every generation, and he defines a generation as the period after which a majority of those alive at the time of a law's passage shall themselves have passed away. Applying tables of mortality from the period, Jefferson calculates that:
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." Invalid Link Removed
​
In addition to his philosophic argument for expiring old laws and constitutions, Jefferson makes certain practical arguments. Like Sidney, he stresses the need for governmental institutions to keep pace with the evolution of human reason and understanding, Invalid Link Removed and he identifies periodic re-constitution and re-legislation as mechanisms for insuring that evolution. On practical grounds, he rejects the opportunity for amendment or repeal as an adequate substitute for the requirement of expiration and re-ratification. Invalid Link Removed
The same principles which invalidate perpetual constitutions and hereditary monarchies also invalidate, by implication, other perpetual legislation. Complementing the generational right of re-constitution, then, must be a generational right of re-legislation. Paine had applied the principle of generational sovereignty to ordinary legislation in a 1786 communication to the Pennsylvania legislature, in language which closely anticipated the tone of Jefferson's 1789 letter to Madison. Defending the state's right to revoke the Bank of North America's charter, Paine explained that a perpetual charter could not exist:
"As we are not to live for ever ourselves, and other generations are to follow us, we have neither the power nor the right to govern them, or to say how they shall govern themselves. . . . [It is] the summit of human vanity . . . to be dictating to the world to come." Invalid Link Removed
​
He went on to suggest that 30 years was the average length of a generation, that any public act could not be in force longer than that term, and that it would be useful to have an explicit notation to that effect in the constitution. Invalid Link Removed
Reflecting the same general philosophy, numerous state constitutions forbade the legislative creation of perpetual or hereditary privileges. Invalid Link Removed
 
southpaw23 said:
No, no and no. He advocated for the review and revision of the Constitution equating it to generational evolution, meaning that the Constitution should reflect the "current" needs of the "current" generation as to avoid being enslaved by the ideals of prior generations. You're inferring meaning and intent behind the words in his letter, rather than letting the words speak for themselves.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

"etween society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . . y the law of nature, one generation is [therefore] to another as one independent nation to another."
Click to expand...


so by jeffersons logic with that, if your allowing his words to speak for themselves; murder, embezzlementt, and fraud would all be ok in todays society, because those laws would have expired well over 19 years ago.

I understand what your saying about the inferring, but to a certain degree inferments have to be made as he is not here, to explain his thoughts and words and why he chose them when writing to madison, based on his other written works. Jefferson throught his life, was always an advocate of limited government-fewer laws, fewer lawmakers, fewer problems. he also taught that you cant rule morality.

the point that ax is trying to make is that the NY laws and the laws that obama administration are proposing are obsessive and intrusive. Yes they still have the right on paper to bear arms, but their laws and restrictions are making it next to impossible to own or purchase one. This is what jefferson was against.

also what ax is saying is that polliticians and lawmakers are smart and they know that "dat der constition" is a big problem in forcing their ideology and problems with guns on the rest of us. they know that they cant outright take guns away from people and make guns illegal (even though they have before, look at chicago) so they pass ridiculous laws and registration regulations and tariffs that make it unfeasable for most of the general public to obtain firearms
 
MANotaur said:
so by jeffersons logic with that, if your allowing his words to speak for themselves; murder, embezzlementt, and fraud would all be ok in todays society, because those laws would have expired well over 19 years ago.

I understand what your saying about the inferring, but to a certain degree inferments have to be made as he is not here, to explain his thoughts and words and why he chose them when writing to madison, based on his other written works. Jefferson throught his life, was always an advocate of limited government-fewer laws, fewer lawmakers, fewer problems. he was also taught that you cant rule morality.

the point that ax is trying to make is that the NY laws and the laws that obama administration are proposing are obsessive and intrusive. Yes they still have the right on paper to bear arms, but their laws and restrictions are making it next to impossible to own or purchase one. This is what jefferson was against.

also what ax is saying is that polliticians and lawmakers are smart and they know that "dat der constition" is a big problem in forcing their ideology and problems with guns on the rest of us. they know that they cant outright take guns away from people and make guns illegal (even though they have before, look at chicago) so they pass ridiculous laws and registration regulations and tariffs that make it unfeasable for most of the general public to obtain firearms
Click to expand...

You don't have to interpret or infer intent behind his words, because his words are clear. And respectfully, that is the silliest comment that I've read in some time..."o by jeffersons logic with that, if your allowing his words to speak for themselves; murder, embezzlementt, and fraud would all be ok in todays society, because those laws would have expired well over 19 years ago." That is not what he expressed at ALL! Calling for the review/revision of the Constitution does NOT equate to complete removal of law. Lol. :/

Explain to me in detail how it is becoming nearly IMPOSSIBLE to own a firearm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top