-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump: Lawmakers 'afraid' of NRA gun lobby group
- Thread starter Gold Dragon
- Start date
from the same article:
"Part of the problem, I think, is that people who hate guns and gun rights cannot believe that people disagree with them in good faith. There must be evil motives, chiefly greed, that explain everything."
Many of the anti-gun rights people seem to believe that all those owning/liking guns and supporting the 2nd amendment are greedy, stupid, violently psychotic, or all of the above. Demonization is coming from both sides in this debate, but it seems like its proportion is far higher from the anti-gun faction.
The NRA does indeed stand for all the Constitution, every single bit of it. The preamble is just that, the preamble. It then goes on to list the rights which limits the government's ability to infringe upon. One could easily say that this freedom of speech which we all have does little to insure the listed domestic tranquility either, so should we ditch that constitutional right too?
Nothing like complete government control of the people, right mate?
Last edited:
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I don't think you should ditch any part of the constitution, including the 2nd amendment. Calling the preamble "just the preamble" is exactly the problem. The preamble outlines the purpose of the constitution. The 2nd amendment is there to fulfill the preamble and it is definitely a part of that purpose.
Reasonable gun policy can happen while preserving the 2nd amendment. I know the NRA tells you that can't happen but I have to believe you guys can be more than just parrots of the NRA.
Government control that the people elect with the checks and balances set up by the founding fathers. Yes.
You do not understand the agenda of the left in the US. Further, what is reasonable is subjective at best. The problem is all of this going after guns will not solve the problem.
Well at least you have that right.
One cannot be reasonable with unreasonable people, and each additional gun law is an additional infringement.
Federally, we have already given up the right to own newly manufactured fully automatic firearms and have to submit to a Federal background check for every gun purchase. Imagine if people had to go through a background check to own a computer or publish an article in the newspaper - why there would be howls of protest from the 4th estate!
Besides the Federal gun laws, each individual state has it's own. Let me tell you how bad this gets. In the State of New Jersey if you are going to the gun range and stop for a cup of coffee on the way, you are in violation of New Jersey's gun laws. This despite the fact that your gun is unloaded, in a locked box, ammunition separated, and not in the passenger portion of the vehicle. And this particular state has even more erroneous gun control laws in mind that they would like to impose. So are they reasonable legislators in New Jersey? Not to my mind.
Unfortunately, in this country the "checks and balances" concept has gone by the wayside. A case in point is this DACA "law" that Obama set into motion by an Executive Order. An Executive Order put in place by one President can be rescinded by another President. But what do we have now? We have President Trump who has made a new Executive Order doing away with Obama's and a certain Federal Judge is now saying that he (Trump) cannot do that. The fact is, only the Congress has the authority to change the immigration laws and Obama's order is patently unconstitutional on it's face, yet a renegade liberal Judge has now exceeded his authority. What happened to the "check and balance" on him?
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I don't see the right to own newly manufactured fully automatic firearms in the US constitution. Or the right to own any type of firearms you want.
So you think a background check is unnecessary for buying a gun and that computers and newspapers articles have the same level of risk associated? Listen to yourself for a second.
You do need a medical license and years of training to prescribe drugs that can potentially kill people. At least in Australia you need a police record check to register as a medical doctor and every year they ask if that has changed and if I have any restrictions from the medical board in order to renew my registration. I don't see people howling about that.
Whatever happened to states rights? Are gun laws somehow above that?
My perspective is that the checks and balances that kept obama from doing things the right were opposed to are also working at keeping Trump in line as well. I think the constitution has been pretty robust despite two very different leaders but you seem to think the founder's system is no longer working. You don't like that Trump can't just ram through the policies you like. I'd say the system is working just the way the founders intended.
Last edited:
Move to Australia.
It may be possible that the Republicans that receive money from the NRA represent people that are gun owners, or that the Republican politicians that receive money from the NRA really believe in 2nd amendment gun rights, or both. Just maybe allow for the possibility...
That is something that everyone respected right up until 1934, there would have been no problem with anyone buying one - through mail order even. But then came the National Firearms Act of 1934 and that right was not even questioned after the passage of that law The only thing a citizen had to do after that law was passed was to register the firearm and pay a $200.00 transfer fee. In fact, citizens can still own them today, but not newly manufactured ones. Oh, and the Supreme Court ruled several years ago that firearms that are commonly used are protected. That means high capacity pistols and those mean looking black AR type semi-automatic rifles.
Just like my 1st Amendment right to free speech, my 2nd Amendment rights are inherent, that is, these rights existed even before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written. The 2nd Amendment is a statement of law that the government cannot infringe on that right, just like the government cannot infringe on any other rights.
There is no specific right in the Constitution to practice medicine, ergo the government can indeed call the shots regarding who and who cannot practice that particular occupation. I see no problem with the government doing that.
The Federal Government has certain enumerated powers assigned to it by the Constitution and I believe they are about 17 in number. According to the Federal Constitution (10th Amendment), everything else is left to the individual states. There could be no 2nd Amendment and then each state could decide if they want their residents to be able to own firearms, but since Federal law trumps state law, no one state can deny you your gun owning rights.
Actually, President Trump is trying to work within the Constitution and the powers that are granted to him. That is why he said he would end Obama's DACA program (One Executive Order can end another Executive Order) and let the Congress rightly decide this particular immigration issue. Congress passes a piece of legislation and the President signs it into law - that is how things are supposed to work. Please tell me where President Trump has exceeded his constitutional authority?
Obama on the other hand just made this particular new immigration policy all by himself, and that my friend is patently unconstitutional. Our problem is that liberal Judges are exceeding their authority and the ruling that Mr. Trump cannot end DACA is absurd - one Executive Order can be ended with another. They did the same thing with Trump's decision on letting certain people into the country, this stuff is not theirs to decide. The Executive branch has the authority to decide these things, not the judiciary.
Liberals (Judges and politicians) do not like the Constitution because it limits what they want to do to you. They say the things that are in the Constitution do not actually mean what they say, and they say the Constitution says what it really does not say. (I keep looking for the "right to have an abortion" but I simply cannot find such a thing listed anywhere).
Last edited:
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I understand that machine guns are legal to own. But that is not the same as being specifically protected in the constitution.
If you are talking about District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008, it specifically states that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited and affirms the right of states to have conceal carry laws and banning of dangerous and unusual weapons.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
"Dangerous and unusual weapons".....were they drunk when they wrote that?
You mean I can't carry a mini flamethrower for personal protection? Darn, I hope my local gun shop will take it back.
They didn't have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it was understood to be one of the firearms people could own - all the way to 1934 (and beyond). You know, that was one of the argument against the "Bill of Rights" in the first place - spelling everything out. It was innately understood that things like gun ownership, free speech, and being secure in one's possessions are inviolate things and they didn't need to be spelled out in some document. Thank God James Madison fought for their inclusion as there is no telling where we would be concerning our freedoms now.
Now, as I asked before, please tell me where you think President Trump has gone past his constitutional duties? (And don't mention the blunder of his that we should deny due process to gun owners that he blurted out a few days ago).
I’ll pass on the redirect to wapo. Thanks anyway.
What did he mean then?
Well, there is this egregious action by the NRA which rather supports the headline in the OP: NRA sues as Florida signs gun-control law
Yea, now that you mention it, what separates us from the Commies...why it’s the US Constitution and if you deny a citizen due process Mr. President 
Please tell me at what age does one become an adult in the United States?
When can you buy alcohol?