They are not law, I will not comply.
Come And Get Me Coppers!
Seems all of this weeks discussion is silly - lots of discussion on what people will say or do. If not the President, it is Lance Armstrong and his show tomorrow.
I am all for waiting to see what is actually said then debate.
Some Liberal co-workers have argued with me this morning on this line:
The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law...” Thus, the second amendment restriction on infringement only applies to the Legislative branch. Therefore, executive orders requiring confiscation would be perfectly legal.
I mean... wow. I couldn’t even counter it. The stupidity was so great as to be blinding.
Actually, the Constitution says it DOESN'T.
Since we no longer worry about that flawed document, the constitution, and Obama is worshiped by the media, there is almost no limit to his powers.
(Not to mention the electorate is under educated, and chronically distracted).
You don't think Mr. Weepy (Boner) is going to do anything, do you?
Truth is the only way to stop these commies is to unelect Democrats.We have to start State by state starting with the low hand=ging fruit!!
He will do anything he wants to do. Who will prevent him? The part of the American public with its head up its a$$ that voted for him? The wimpy Republicans?
Come And Get Me Coppers!
What a maroon! Laws don't ever stop behavior; they only create penalties for behavior...
I don’t know why we even engage in this debate. The 2A is a natural law, a God given right existing before the Constitution! These friggin socialist libtard pukes want to debate this they can take it up with God, in person, once the talk has ended, and they learn first hand the consequences of infringement upon this right from God fearing Patriots!
With the stroke of a pen...Poof...
Well, I guess he and his minions made this easy...
From District of Columbia v. Heller, in which DC tried to get the Federal District Court of Appeals judgement [for Heller] overturned:
... In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."
"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.