Obama Changing the 2nd ammendment. True or false?

So, Cruisin through my friends NRA mag, and found this thing on Obamalamamamajama (its like bananna, you just can't stop). Does anyone Know anything about what this is saying?Or if its even true? I don't know how he would get any of this passed, let alone exicuted.

Just to clear things up before the flaming, I'm 17, and haven't grown up in a family that discusses politics very often, if at all.

Barack Obama's ten point plan to "change" the Second Amendment.

1) Ban the use of firearms for home defence.

2) Pass federal laws eliminating your right to carry.

3) Ban the manufacture, sale and posession of handguns.

4) Close down 90% of gun shops in America.

5) Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%.

7) Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.

8) Expand the clinton semi - auto ban to include millions more firearms.

9) Mandate a government issued license to purchase a firearm

10)Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme court and federal judiciary who share his views on the second amendment.


Again, I don't see how he could get enough people to vote on this to get any of it to pass. Hell, I know I wouldn't vote for any of it. I can think of alot of negitive consequences if these took action.

By now, they're overlooking something.

Ordnance plans for most common USGI firearms are available freely for the looking (I've got most of them for my own reference,) and any student machinist can make most of the parts. So, you're not going to "stop the flow of firearms."

It's difficult to rifle a barrel - but recall that General Motors designed and built the Liberator pistol. It was made from steel stampings, was a single-shot .45ACP smoothbore, cost about $2.50 each to make, and they dropped them by the thousands into France and surrounding areas. No, it may not be enough to tackle a squad lone-handed - but it was enough to get you something better - like a Mauser (at the time.) Now you're equal to more fighting men, and you can keep working your way up the chain. If things go to Hell all at once, one motivated man with a rock can equip himself with something better in fairly short order... He can then equip friends. It's painfully easy to make crude firearms - both contact range and short-range. Most of what you need can be found at the local hardware store. Making ammunition takes a trip to the drugstore - blackpowder is easy. Smokeless is less easy, and explosives can also be made with a trip to the drugstore and/or the grocery store. Oops.

And, if Obama wants to actually change the Constitution - it's going to be fairly difficult. When was the last Amendment ratified - something like fifty years ago? It was made difficult to change legally for a reason - it should be a change that really needs to be made. It takes a two-thirds majority to change to make sure that most of the people are on board with the idea.

As you can probably guess, I come from a long line of Conservatives (mainly Libertarian. I don't think any one of us has voted a "straight ticket" in the last sixty or seventy years - most of us are "issues" voters.)

As you can probably guess, this is a case where the "genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back." You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but you can't make the eggs again. You can't tuck a bugle call back into a bugle. And, you can't unring a bell. You probably get the idea.

Although I do think that the Democrat party should just get it over with and change their name to Socialist, and the Republican party can call themselves Democrats (since they've both gone pretty well to the Left, politically.) The Libertarians are largely what the Republicans once were, and both of the mainstream parties are only really looking out for themselves.

"Spirit of '76 - Re-elect Nobody!"

You have to remember the context of the advertisement/article you read.

The NRA is just as much a lobbying group as anybody else. They produce their own magazine and can put pretty much whatever they want in it.

The propaganda that they've used in that article did it's job. It got you interested enough to talk about it and maybe even interested enough to go vote in the election for their choice of candidate.

Some of those things I'm sure the democratic party would be interested in. But most of it is a blitzkreig attempt at swaying the NRA membership to vote the way the NRA wants them to vote.

5-90 said:

When was the last Amendment ratified - something like fifty years ago?

Click to expand...

1992.....27th amendment

While I like the NRA and feel they do alot to protect 2nd Amendment rights. they are a special intrest group none the less... they are at times extreemist in their views and are not above exgerated propaganda. They will atempt to block ANY gun law even if it makes sence to every joe out there. A state could try to pass any silly little nothing and the NRA will foam at the mouth over it. like oh i dont know "no brown leather holsters after labor day". and the NRA would scream infringment of 2nd admendment rights.

Now dont get me wrong, the NRA does alot of good too. And i am gun owner and CCW holder. So no liberal thoughts on that topic.

5-90 said:

And, if Obama wants to actually change the Constitution - it's going to be fairly difficult. When was the last Amendment ratified - something like fifty years ago? It was made difficult to change legally for a reason - it should be a change that really needs to be made. It takes a two-thirds majority to change to make sure that most of the people are on board with the idea.


"Spirit of '76 - Re-elect Nobody!"

Click to expand...

Amendment XXVII Ratified May 7, 1992
"No Law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Represntatives shall have intervened"

The ERA could not get the 2/3rds needed late 60's early 70's and hasn't been brought up since. I doubt that there will be a repeal of the 2nd Admendment

He actually brought up gun control in his acceptance speech. See, the thing is, he doesn't propose to have all the answers. A lot of the speakers during the convention were people that see things differently than him and he doesn't have a problem with that. Anyway, here's the quote.

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

buschwhaked said:

He actually brought up gun control in his acceptance speech. See, the thing is, he doesn't propose to have all the answers. A lot of the speakers during the convention were people that see things differently than him and he doesn't have a problem with that. Anyway, here's the quote.

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Click to expand...

Yeah but if one thing scares me about Obama is his history is notirously anti-gun and we all know he is a very well spoken politican. Overall I really like alot of what he has to say, but I like my guns, and I do belive the part where he is ingorant to firearms and has the potental to repeat and expand on the mistakes of the clinton gun ban. Will he even try to repeal the 2nd, no I dont think so, but he's one of these "that gun LOOKS more dangerous you cant have it" types.

buschwhaked said:

He actually brought up gun control in his acceptance speech. See, the thing is, he doesn't propose to have all the answers. A lot of the speakers during the convention were people that see things differently than him and he doesn't have a problem with that. Anyway, here's the quote.

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Click to expand...

What you heard last night in that quote was a democratic fence post answer to an issue he opposes.

The only way he wants to keep guns out of criminals' hands is to take them away from everyone, ala Clinton.

He's a very well spoken individual. Sounded an awful lot during the whole thing that he was trying to please everyone on both sides of all the issues. It doesn't work that way in real life, you have to choose. I bet he chooses the party line when he has to.

A little late, but whatever.
The way in which the 2nd is worded makes it tough to fight.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

I can agree in principle with Obama's statement about keeping AK's out of the hands of criminals. I have to wonder how many AK totin' gang bangers purchased those weapons legally. There's a reason they're called "throw aways". When you're done with it, throw it away. It wasn't permited or licensed or anything of that nature, so when it's found it can't be traced back to the trigger man.

Remember the "Brady Bill"? All that one did was make you and I have to wait a few days to get a new handgun. Does anybody really believe that members of the Crips, Vice Lords, etc. filled out the forms and waited three days to get a pistol?

I think it bears repeating that,
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

First gun waiting periods have a place in the world, beyond the first gun though is when it becomes useless, however it is also hard when it comes to private sales and the like to figure out if you still have the first gun.

But when you're known to have multiple guns that you've purchased relitively recently (less likely you've sold them) the waiting period is useless, the waiting perdiod is only for the "god damnit I'm going to kill that bitch right now!" thing, not for "in case I need to rob a bank."

As for gun control to limit crime I can see what they are thinking but in order to really have an effect they'd have to cut off all other ways that guns get into hands, and that's impossable, so keep your god damn hands off my guns.

Sequoia, your resident gun toting Jeep driving liberal.

Here in PA we don't even have a waiting period we have instant checks and that's it. When I bought my handgun, I was in Cabella's filled out the paperwork, was told to shop for about 20 min and my purchase would be ready at the firearms checkout. Same day I decided on the spot I wanted the one they had, I walked out with it. And I'm sure as hell not going to do something stupid so they take it away.

And Obama can have his ideas, but after the recent DC case on the 2nd he will have a hard time with them getting passed.

Don't get me wrong, as a gun owner myself I don't want that right infringed upon. But I also realize that it's not an inherit right. When the Constitution was created the states had the option to ratify the various amendments in the Bill of Rights. This is one of the justifications for the Civil War. After the civil war, the Supreme Court mandated that certain amendments usurp state law and thereby become "fundamental rights."

Screw it, the guy who wrote this is a lawyer on another forum and it's a good brief history and explanation of the second amendment. Much better than I could write.

"The 2nd amendment to the US constitution was actually derived almost verbatim from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. And the English law protecting the right to bear arms was put in place because the Catholic kings, James II and Charles II, had a tendency to disarm the local Protestant militias so the Catholic thugs could terrorize them.

The original Constitution did not apply to the states. Period. If the state wanted to make it illegal to speak in public they could do so and the Constitution said nothing about it. It wasn't until after the Civil War with the ratification of the 14th amendment that the Constitution began to be applied to the states via the doctrine of "incorporation." "Incorporation" means that the 14th Amendment (which prohibits states from violating the fundamental civil rights of its citizens) can extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. However, the doctrine of incorporation requires each provision of the bill of rights to be separately incorporated. That is, the Court has to decide that a certain right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, is in fact a fundamental right that is then "incorporated" to the states via the 14th amendment.

As of yet, the 2nd amendment has not been incorporated. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Therefore, the 2nd amendment does not prevent the State from putting restrictions on when and where you can carry a weapon."

So, bottom line, I would worry more about your state laws than what congress and or the Presidents wants/trys to do.

Here's the link if you want to read the whole discussion:
http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126735&page=3

IntrepidXJ said:

1992.....27th amendment

Click to expand...

Thanks - both of you.

Doesn't solve that basic problem tho - Congresscritters can still vote themselves rate-rounds, they just have to wait a little longer for it to hit the bank now. I had a buddy with a good idea - don't let Congress vote on their own rate rises - put it to the constituency with either a two-thirds or a three-fourth supermajority.

GSequoia said:

"in case I need to rob a bank."

Click to expand...

ROFL...!

whats the deal with PA, I got my permit today and it says "Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms"...is that your version of CCW?

I think that the Dems can go as far as they want with restricting the sale of firearms. Let them enact a 2 month waiting period, they can scan my fingerprints, my retinas, collect a stool sample, perform a Psych. eval, ask for recomendations from employers and educators about how I was as a child and make sure I was hugged...as long as they don't restrict the sale to everyone or anyone based on their irrational fears. Test me, I'll pass! Those who don't, well they are the idiots who shouldn't be buying these things to begin with, and are the source of their irrational fears.

PS. didn't you have to apply for a PA state Lic. before walking in and buying a pistol??

Edit:
Anyone familiar with PA and the issue of Open Carry vs. CCW? Do people open carry? Why? Wouldn't open carry be somewhat of a public nusiance?

EMSJEEP said:

ROFL...!
Edit:
Anyone familiar with PA and the issue of Open Carry vs. CCW? Do people open carry? Why? Wouldn't open carry be somewhat of a public nusiance?

Click to expand...

In Colorado it is legal to open carry. However, you can be charged with some sort of felony like causing a public panic or some shit like that. I only open carry in a national forest while back packing or in my car/jeep when traveling to a sketchy area. Mostly for just easy access. My .40 is a little to big to conceal anyway.

I am ex law enforcment, and I don't know about in your areas, but around here, the Sheriff's Department and Police Departments have alot more important things to do than go door to door collecting the firearms of completely law abiding citizens. Not only that, I can't imagine how many law enforcement officer's would lose their lives that day. I know this, I am ex law enforcement, I am pretty hard lined when it comes to legal issues, and rights of criminals vs the rights of the law abiding citizen, but NO ONE will take my firearms away from me.

I am a collector, and have 4 full size gun safe's containing somewhere around 700 firearms in all. I own each one legally, and treat each weapon with the utmost respect. I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman, and I am still listed as a reserve deputy for the Sheriff's Department should they need me. However, I repeat, NO ONE will take my guns away.

Anyways I always wondered what keeps everyone from just saying, sorry I sold all my guns several months ago. Then the Feds will find out that everyone in the country recently sold their guns, but no one knows who bought them, because no one claims to have bought millions of firearms in the last few months.

I would have to fill out at least three separate pieces of paperwork to legally transfer a pistol from me to someone else...and I know the one form costs $10...not sure about the others...so, they would know. Someone mentioned before in another thread that the Canadians went around collecting firearms at some point when they changed their laws, so unfortunately its not completely out of the question.

EMSJEEP said:

ROFL...!

whats the deal with PA, I got my permit today and it says "Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms"...is that your version of CCW?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the PA name for CCW

EMSJEEP said:

PS. didn't you have to apply for a PA state Lic. before walking in and buying a pistol??

Edit:
Anyone familiar with PA and the issue of Open Carry vs. CCW? Do people open carry? Why? Wouldn't open carry be somewhat of a public nusiance?

Click to expand...

No, no pa license, instant check at point of purchase and that's it, have a nice day. Open cary is legal but not practiced as you would probably be harassed by LE and the like. However Permit to Cary is pretty common from what I hear.

OC in PA is very real, and practiced more than you guys may realize. Visit www.opencarry.org and find the PA sub forum. You'll be surprised by how much OC is a reality, and how hard it is to actually "see" someone doing such. It's not like the gun magically stands out and screams look at me when someone is carrying. Most people aren't situationally aware enough to see a gun on someones hip.



As far as public nuisance, disturbing the peice etc etc for open carrying usually is just used as a scare tactic to keep lesser informed people from doing a legal activity. Most states have laws stating that in order for a citizen to be charged with such violations, the person must be acting in such a manner. Simply open carrying (a legal activity) is not the same as brandishing, creating a public nuisance, or disturbing the peice (illegal activities). Simply because someone might see it, and create a stir does not now make it illegal for you to be carrying a gun. Its simply their lack of self control, emotion, and feelings and not the laws. No ones opinions trumps you're rights, no matter how they feel about it.


As a caveat note. I am a Utah citizen who open carries almost always, with small exceptions where I will carry concealed. Utah is more widely known as a more gun friendly state than most. But this makes no difference from the other states where OC is still legal.

Remember, if it's not illegal it's legal.