Obama goes far Commie !

TIf you've committed a crime, I have the right to make a citizens' arrest. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

And if he has good reason to believe you lack the authority to do so, because the alleged crime was not committed in your presence, he can defend himself from an unlawful arrest, at which time you can be arrested by him for an assault committed by you in his presence.

Neither of those "rights" were established by the Constitution or its amendments.

Your perspective seems to be that the Constitution (and amendments) gives you rights, which is actually the opposite. The Constitution and the amendments PROTECTS your inherent rights from Government intrusion. The most common example of that philosophy exercised almost daily is the concept of the "presumption of innocence." The basis of our judicial system, which has Christian foundations, is that all men are born innocent and therefore free of control by Government or anyone else, and it is the Government's burden to prove sufficient facts to justify taking that freedom away. Until Government satisfies that burden you are innocent and should be free.

The question isn't about not being infringed upon. That part is clear. What isn't clear is what it is that shouldn't be infringed upon. Actually the Constitution does not protect your right to privacy. And I actually can decide your liberty. If you've committed a crime, I have the right to make a citizens' arrest.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ofprivacy.html

And just to be crystal clear; I don't want your guns. I don't want law-abiding people's guns. I want guns out of the hands of people who would use them to do harm. Criminals, mentally unstable, etc. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You either misunderstand or blatantly misrepresent the constitution.
You can not show me where it states that you may invade my privacy or decide my freedom. No one is talking about criminals or their loss of liberty. We are talking about the liberties of free men, citizens of these United States and not some criminal deflection.

You sir and no one else has any right to invade my privacy, none.
Why there is little wonder that you think so very little of the Bill of Rights and what it does insure.
Your perception of this doctrine is as if it was designed to allow government to throttle back the people. It is not about limiting the citizenry, it is about limiting the federal government and abuse of power. There is so much more about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights than you are seeing.
You are cheating yourself, UC .

You added the two last bits later. And they contradict one another. One says a living constitution has mechanisms for amending it. The second one says the exact opposite. A living constitution DOESN'T need to be amended because it somehow evolves. I'm not sure how you evolve without changing but I'll let you explain. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

you cant read as well as think or even follow your own irrational statements..ok so they are irrational, no one can exactly follow them

I was responding to your previous dumb posts



I know I will have to go slow....

so here it is step by step

I said

redefining words to confuse the masses are their stock in trade as is a "living" constitution such that no one really may be secure in any right and new rights can be discovered to further their control

then you said

So you don't agree with a living constitution but you contend it gives you the rights to an assault rifle? Am I correct in assuming that? In the original constitution, women and african americans had no rights. In fact, they couldn't vote and african americans were 2/3 a person. Are you saying that's the way it should still be? Because if you don't believe in a living constitution, it should still be the same, yes?"

etc..ad nauseam

so it was obvious you had no clue concerning the term "living" constitution.


so I was telling you that me not agreeing with a "living constitution" doesn't mean that I think the constitution cant be changed, no we have mechanisms for its change . a living constitution isn't one in which there are no amendments possible or who cares there are amendments...makes no difference..amending it is not necessary or if it is amended, well the meanings can change there too......its ALIVE..... a living constitution isn't one in which there are amendments or there aren't amendments

the constitution we have can be changed and there are mechanisms for it, and if we are to change it, im in favor of following the actual mechanisms to change it..not just letting times and smart people and courts and liberals redefine words and meanings or finding new powers of government

a living constitution requires no such law change or if there is an amendment, that can evolve as well, the whole thing evolves based on the dreams of the masters

you obliviously didn't know what the term meant so you took it to mean I don't believe in an amendment mechanism...

in my exasperation with your post and haste typing in the cold on an iphone out in the field
it may have not included all the niceties or spelled it out in detail but you didn't know the term but now you act like you do

you cant read as well as think Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you cant read as well as think or even follow your own irrational statements..ok so they are irrational, no one can exactly follow them

I was responding to your previous dumb posts



I know I will have to go slow....

so here it is step by step

I said

redefining words to confuse the masses are their stock in trade as is a "living" constitution such that no one really may be secure in any right and new rights can be discovered to further their control

then you said

So you don't agree with a living constitution but you contend it gives you the rights to an assault rifle? Am I correct in assuming that? In the original constitution, women and african americans had no rights. In fact, they couldn't vote and african americans were 2/3 a person. Are you saying that's the way it should still be? Because if you don't believe in a living constitution, it should still be the same, yes?"

etc..ad nauseam

so it was obvious you had no clue concerning the term "living" constitution.


so I was telling you that me not agreeing with a "living constitution" doesn't mean that I think the constitution cant be changed, no we have mechanisms for its change . a living constitution isn't one in which there are no amendments possible or who cares there are amendments...makes no difference..amending it is not necessary or if it is amended, well the meanings can change there too......its ALIVE..... a living constitution isn't one in which there are amendments or there aren't amendments

the constitution we have can be changed and there are mechanisms for it, and if we are to change it, im in favor of following the actual mechanisms to change it..not just letting times and smart people and courts and liberals redefine words and meanings or finding new powers of government

a living constitution requires no such law change or if there is an amendment, that can evolve as well, the whole thing evolves based on the dreams of the masters

you obliviously didn't know what the term meant so you took it to mean I don't believe in an amendment mechanism...

in my exasperation with your post and haste typing in the cold on an iphone out in the field
it may have not included all the niceties or spelled it out in detail but you didn't know the term but now you act like you do Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

methinks thou doth protest too much

You either misunderstand or blatantly misrepresent the constitution.
You can not show me where it states that you may invade my privacy or decide my freedom. No one is talking about criminals or their loss of liberty. We are talking about the liberties of free men, citizens of these United States and not some criminal deflection.

You sir and no one else has any right to invade my privacy, none.
Why there is little wonder that you think so very little of the Bill of Rights and what it does insure.
Your perception of this doctrine is as if it was designed to allow government to throttle back the people. It is not about limiting the citizenry, it is about limiting the federal government and abuse of power. There is so much more about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights than you are seeing.
You are cheating yourself, UC . Originally Posted by rioseco

I'm aware of why it exists.

Save your brass. Originally Posted by LexusLover

damn right! save and stockpile your ammo. the nation you may need to save might be your own.

the only tenuous grip to the freedom of the United States is the right to bear arms. why else did the Founding Fathers refer to it in this way .....

"All threats foreign and domestic .. "

the only thing that has stopped the libtard leftist closet socialists (democrats) otherwise known as progressives .. is the 75 to 80 MILLION gun owners in the USA. that gives the USA an "instant militia" of upwards of 80 million.

Russia ain't got no guns. totalitarian control
China ain't got no guns. totalitarian control
Cuba ain't got no guns. totalitarian control

do you begin to see a pattern here ??

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

did the chimp say something?




by the way, i found a picture of your mom too..




she must be so proud

did the chimp say something?

You should know he is your brother wacco.




by the way, i found a picture of my mom too..




she must be so proud Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Thanks for showing your ignorance once again, and posting pictures of your family you dumb mother fucker.

Exactly what do you need an assault rifle for? I'm pretty sure the second amendment doesn't mention assault rifles. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

The Second Amendment didn't mention cannons, either, but they most certainly were privately owned before, during, and after the Revolutionary War. They continue to be privately owned today, by collectors, and the most highly-prized ones are fully operational, with ammunition available. If "Sons of Guns" ever comes back on TV, watch it sometime. You'll see some interesting Arms.

The Second Amendment didn't mention Sam Colt's Equalizer, but nobody is going to claim it wasn't covered.

The Second Amendment mentioned Arms, which was a generic word for weapons, and more specifically for weapons to be used in war. If anything, that specifically DOES include "assault rifles".

Oh, and while we're at it, what is the actual legal definition of "assault rifle"?

what is the actual legal definition of "assault rifle"? Originally Posted by Sidewinder

As far as I am concerned the phrase is an oxymoron.

But it is used by the liberal media to cast an ugly label on legitimate weapons.

I wish Congress would ban he sale of golf balls, ...

............ so Obaminable would get some work done.

Here's a picture of a Union soldier with an "assault rifle".

Here's a picture of a Union soldier with an "assault rifle".

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

is that a picture of the soldier who stole your slaves, IBMassa?

The Second Amendment didn't mention cannons, either, but they most certainly were privately owned before, during, and after the Revolutionary War. They continue to be privately owned today, by collectors, and the most highly-prized ones are fully operational, with ammunition available. If "Sons of Guns" ever comes back on TV, watch it sometime. You'll see some interesting Arms.

The Second Amendment didn't mention Sam Colt's Equalizer, but nobody is going to claim it wasn't covered.

The Second Amendment mentioned Arms, which was a generic word for weapons, and more specifically for weapons to be used in war. If anything, that specifically DOES include "assault rifles".

Oh, and while we're at it, what is the actual legal definition of "assault rifle"? Originally Posted by Sidewinder

You have a cannon or do they just take you to the Alamo on day trips, Cornholio?

The park today?

Just not ChuckECheese

damn right! save and stockpile your ammo. the nation you may need to save might be your own.

the only tenuous grip to the freedom of the United States is the right to bear arms. why else did the Founding Fathers refer to it in this way .....

"All threats foreign and domestic .. "

the only thing that has stopped the libtard leftist closet socialists (democrats) otherwise known as progressives .. is the 75 to 80 MILLION gun owners in the USA. that gives the USA an "instant militia" of upwards of 80 million.

Russia ain't got no guns. totalitarian control
China ain't got no guns. totalitarian control
Cuba ain't got no guns. totalitarian control

do you begin to see a pattern here ?? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You're being played for a fool by the gun lobby. Even if this particular ammo is made illegal, there will still be 32 manufacturers making 168 different types of this round that will be perfectly legal.


http://news.yahoo.com/us-considers-b...-politics.html