February 25, Shocking Obama Gun Ban

In an unbelievable twist that has left us all scratching our heads, President Obama has announced his plans to...ban guns! Attorney General Eric Holder said that putting a ban back on assault weapons would not only be a positive move by the U.S., it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border to Mexico. Maybe it's just me, but when the Bill of Rights says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I don't see anywhere that it singles out specific firearms.

 


Comments

Tiffany

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:11:28

Now, I have a couple of points to make here:

1. I love how it is justified to ban assault weapons in one country due to their negative use in another country. Surely that's a CUSTOMS issue, not a weapons issue? I mean, doesn't every airport/ seaport in/ out of the US clearly state that guns are not allowed on board?! So what this issue really exposes is how leaky the US/ Mexican border really is. Again, not a 1st Amendment issue at all.

2. Besides, if one country is worried about its illegal gun imports, surely it's up to them to sort this problem out on their own borders?! It's not just up to the US to keep guns going out, but other countries (Mexico) should work to keep guns from coming IN.

3. Now here I'm a little controversial, either as a conservative or as a libertarian. But the 1st Amendment right to bear arms was written at a time when there was no standing army, navy, ANYTHING. All military was voluntary (militia, or minute men, as they were known). Additionally, there was a frontier with hostile neighbours (Native Americans, French and Spanish for starters). Thirdly, the wild life was also pretty inhospitable to the husbandry introduced by the 13 states: wildcats and coyotes and bears, oh my! In today's world, though, we have a standing army headed by the President as Commander-in-Chief, and we have Police forces to 'keep the peace' domestically, under control of local/ state governments - and of course the FBI/ Homeland Security, ad nauseum, for federal policing.

My point is, we have a choice: to keep the right to bear arms, we should DISBAND A STANDING ARMY, LOCAL/ STATE POLICE, and INTERNAL INTELLIGENCE organisations. Then we can deal with things as individuals, making citizen's arrests and bringing the cases to lawyers, who would try things in circuit courts with judges & a jury of peers, as intended. OR we keep the army, police, intelligence services, etc, and GIVE UP the right to bear arms.

That's how I see it, anyway. In my humble opinion.

 

Jay

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:42:57

1. I agree with you. If country X has a problem with guns, then it's up to country X to solve their problem. Restricting the rights of Americans in an attempt to ease the burden on a foreign country's government is unacceptable. Mexico should loosen their gun control laws so innocent people stand a chance of defending themselves.

3. Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution states that Congress can, "...raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years..." So technically we should never have a federally-funded army for longer than (2) years. State militias were to be responsible for the defense of our country. Which leads to the question that maybe our military forces shouldn't be used to fight other country's battles? Maybe our military's sole purpose is to defend America against foreign attacks and nothing else....

Foreign enemies aside, something that has been forgotten, is that each American individual is responsible for enforcing the law. We have become too dependent on our local governments and police officers to settle disputes. They should only be used to clarify the law's position when a dispute occurs. This means that in order for the law to be properly enforced, the right of American citizens to carry guns should not be regulated or revoked (unless, of course, the individual is a known felon). Police officers just simply cannot be everywhere at once.

Another plus for having an armed citizenry is to prevent our own government from overthrowing us. Just think where we'd be if the colonists were not allowed to own guns!

 



Leave a Reply