User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:24:29 PM EST
[#1]
Reading his statement, I'm having a hard time understanding his stance. He responds to a pic he's seen but his response doesn't seem to definitively take a side or state an opinion. Am I wrong?
How are you reading it OP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:25:45 PM EST
[#2]
What am I supposed to be outraged about?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:26:03 PM EST
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:27:12 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading his statement, I'm having a hard time understanding his stance. He responds to a pic he's seen but his response doesn't seem to definitively take a side or state an opinion. Am I wrong? How are you reading it OP? Thanks for posting my exact thoughts so eloquently 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:27:28 PM EST
[#5]
If you can't come up with the response on your own it's probably better to leave it alone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:28:54 PM EST
[#6]
Just post a copy of the SAFE Act.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:30:55 PM EST
[#7]
How cute, he still thinks the government plays by the rules.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:31:11 PM EST
[#8]
I took his post as being generally supportive of the 2nd. Am I misreading it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:31:21 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
I need a response to the following post: "I've wanted to say this for a while, but today someone posted a very disturbing photo of a mother hugging her child before both were executed by a Nazi soldier, for being Jewish. The tag line was: this is what happens when the government confiscates your guns. "I guess many of you slept through, or skipped government classes, but this thing called the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to bear arms. And unless 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress AND 35 states vote to amend or remove the 2nd amendment, it CANNOT happen. Not POTUS nor SCOTUS nor anyone else can take away your right to own a gun." FYI: Even tho I've known this guy for 40 years, I will unfriend him when I am finished rebutting him. What was that quote? Something like: Here is a Republic if you can keep it. Tell him to try bearing arms in NYC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:32:23 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just post a copy of the SAFE Act. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:32:49 PM EST
[#11]
Rational and factual are foreign concepts on Facebook
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:33:10 PM EST
[#12]
Ask him about the Warsaw Uprising
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:33:55 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can't come up with the response on your own it's probably better to leave it alone. I am wise enough to know there are smarter and more articulate people that I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:36:44 PM EST
[#14]
Read five times, sounds good to me. Pic is probbly Operation Barborossa.
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/camp/eur/ger/bar/bar-ext.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:38:12 PM EST
[#15]
No fucking idea what his stance is based upon that statement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:39:01 PM EST
[#16]
It doesn't matter if the government openly denies a right or if they regulate it and dismantle it piece by piece. Blacks could vote in the south as long as they met the "qualifications."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/voting_literacy.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:39:11 PM EST
[#17]
They don't teach history any longer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:39:16 PM EST
[#18]
He's naive in thinking SCOTUS/POTUS can't take away your right.
They have and will continue to "regulate" the right into non existence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:42:36 PM EST
[#19]
I'm confused, that post seems to be supporting the second amendment.
Are you wanting to convince him that the .gov has actually already limited it a good bit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:42:43 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I took his post as being generally supportive of the 2nd. Am I misreading it? This. What's to rebut? Naive to think. however, that a liberal SCOTUS could not "reinterpret" the 2nd Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:43:49 PM EST
[#21]
The easiest way to rebuttals that response is to delete your Facebook account.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:44:46 PM EST
[#22]
I'm confused.
Perhaps I'm reading his statement wrong, but he seems to be stating correctly that the 2A is in place and cannot be usurped by POTUS/SCOTUS. Or am I missing something... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:48:28 PM EST
[#23]
Why worry about FB OP? The only one that cares is you! Say your peace, take your ban, and live a better life...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:50:08 PM EST
[#24]
... sometimes a simple, "FUCK YOU" works
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:50:18 PM EST
[#25]
Op are you an anti gunner? Im confused.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:50:55 PM EST
[#26]
Maybe he believes that, "common sense/reasonable" gun laws aren't a violation of the 2nd Amendment's, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" clause?
Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:52:38 PM EST
[#27]
There was an AWB back in the 90s, that included limitations on magazine capacity. The denigration of the 2nd Amendment can happen at anytime, depending on the politics that are the majority of the congress, senate, and the president. The SCROTUS is not your friend either. They didn't strike down the AWB as unconstitutional. The only guarantees for the 2A is what we collectively fight for.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:53:12 PM EST
[#28]
He is correct, which is why they want to outlaw just a few types of guns at a time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:53:29 PM EST
[#29]
I don't get it. He seems to be saying that the 2nd Amendment is here to stay.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:53:51 PM EST
[#30]
Need some context - is he supporting UBC and mag limits and general AWB's and saying no one wants to or can take them away and measures such as this are common sense?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:56:46 PM EST
[#31]
It might be read as "No one is planning to 'take your guns' you ignorant hicks" but I'm not at all sure that's the Facebook poster's intent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:56:54 PM EST
[#32]
Just like SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress would never force you to buy a product you don't want.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:57:27 PM EST
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:57:29 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm confused, that post seems to be supporting the second amendment. Are you wanting to convince him that the .gov has actually already limited it a good bit? Read it a few times, basically he spouting the same liberal statement we dont want your guns. But what they are really saying is we don't want all your guns, as long as all your guns are muskets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:57:31 PM EST
[#35]
His statement is idealistic and the 'way it should be'. However, state bans, presidential executive orders, interpretation of federal regulations, demonization by the media, and dozens of other means are being used to erode those rights. You even have a presidential candidate who is espousing an Australian style confiscation - along with numerous members of Congress. Incremental efforts by these forces of evil have chipped away at those Constitutional guarantees of our inalienable rights for decades and have left behind a Second Amendment that would horrify our founding fathers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 7:58:46 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just like SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress would never force you to buy a product you don't want. God Dammit. I get so mad every time I think about it in those terms. Or force you into a contract with a private corporation... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:05:48 PM EST
[#37]
Just tell him that:
The powers that be are doing whatever they can to limit the interpretation of the second amendment to the point of making it meaningless. Every time someone goes nuts with a gun, the media, the progressives and all of their fellow travelers try to use the emotional upwelling to further restrict the Second. Make no mistake, their end goal is disarmament of every American. They're willing to chip away at the Second every chance that they get until we're so worn down that we give up and let them dispose of the Second Amendment altogether. They've been chipping away at that it since 1934, and its up to those of us who care about our civil rights to remain vigilant. The picture of the Jewish mother and child being executed was to remind you of the stakes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:07:10 PM EST
[#38]
I'm confused...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:17:33 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading his statement, I'm having a hard time understanding his stance. He responds to a pic he's seen but his response doesn't seem to definitively take a side or state an opinion. Am I wrong? How are you reading it OP? the guy is saying that since there is still the text of the 2nd in the constitution, nobody will be able to take away your guns. aside from the whole, "we can have reasonable restrictions and we get to decide what is reasonable" part. hillary has already stated that they would "take care" of the 2nd once she gets in office and gets some more liberal judges on the scotus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:20:17 PM EST
[#40]
1) Truth hurts, doesn't it?
2) Someone is sleeping through life. WAKE THE HELL UP!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:30:16 PM EST
[#41]
Unless I'm missing something he sounds pro gun. What's going on here?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:44:11 PM EST
[#42]
I think your reading comprehension sucks. Go back and read what he's saying again, and then kick yourself in the ass for getting upset.
 Forgot the . |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:47:53 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just post a copy of the SAFE Act. This First thing I thought of as well. It is beyond naive to think that the government will play by the rules and not seek to undermine and marginalize constitutionally protected rights whenever they are inconvenient. If he wants a federal law instead of state, point him to the GFSZA, particularly its original rationale before it was struck down and then re-passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:56:15 PM EST
[#44]
I have no problem with what was stated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 8:57:47 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I took his post as being generally supportive of the 2nd. Am I misreading it? That is my take on the friends post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 9:07:33 PM EST
[#46]
Your friend does not take the threat seriously. He believes the current interpretation of the second will stand without change as to how we interpret it today.
Hell, with the losses in CA, CT, NY, etc it's clear the second is losing it's interpretation already. When they limit us to bolt action or single shot rifles only - will it even require more than the wrong accumulation of the Supremes to validate it as being constitutional? Your friend is going to ignore the threat until what he has has been so emasculated as to be unrecognizable by comparison to what we have today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 9:08:07 PM EST
[#47]
Pretty easy. When you can walk from one end of Washington D.C. or Chicago with an AR-15 and not get it confiscated let me know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 9:08:19 PM EST
[#48]
Just tell that what he claims can't happen is happening right now.
One more Liberal in the SCOTUS and the Second Amendment is effectively gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 9:08:34 PM EST
[#49]
Quoted:
I need a response to the following post: "I've wanted to say this for a while, but today someone posted a very disturbing photo of a mother hugging her child before both were executed by a Nazi soldier, for being Jewish. The tag line was: this is what happens when the government confiscates your guns. "I guess many of you slept through, or skipped government classes, but this thing called the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to bear arms. And unless 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress AND 35 states vote to amend or remove the 2nd amendment, it CANNOT happen. Not POTUS nor SCOTUS nor anyone else can take away your right to own a gun." FYI: Even tho I've known this guy for 40 years, I will unfriend him when I am finished rebutting him. He's right that POTUS and SCOTUS cannot take away our right to own a gun, but he's wrong about why. He's also wrong about what I think he's implying. The founding fathers believed that our rights were "endowed by our Creator." By this, some of them meant the rights were God-given, others believed they were "natural rights" but they all would agree that these rights belong to every human everywhere just because we are human. They called these rights "unalienable" because they could not be taken or given away. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to grant us rights, it is to protect our rights and reign in govt. and would be incredibly difficult now to remove the 2nd amendment. In However, the existence of natural/God-given rights, and the protection of the Bill of Rights has not kept SCOTUS and POTUS and lesser courts and governments from engaging in systematic and prolonged abuses of those rights. In my lifetime I've seen government ignore the rights protected by every amendment except the 3rd. So, just because they cannot take our rights, and it would be difficult for them to remove our constitutional protections of those rights, doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about those politicians that have shown a disrespect and disregard towards the 2nd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 9:14:25 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't get it. He seems to be saying that the 2nd Amendment is here to stay. To me he is basically in a nut shell saying "OMG Obama is coming to take your guns!" or the same with Hillary in a nicely worded "gun owners are stupid". |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
