For any on the fence of which way to vote this year

[wbm]

It wasn't an Executive Order, it was just a change of definition on the part of the Dept. of State.

To me this is a prime example of the real dilemma and the danger we face related not only to the 2nd amendment but to several of the others. Someone, somewhere that has governmental authority "re-defines" what an amendment or law says. Rather than taking the language of an amendment or law at it's plain sense meaning it is re-defined in a legally binding manner that either enlarges or reduces the scope of the original. For example Hillary Clinton said recently that she is a supporter of the 2nd amendment but "like the other amendments it must be regulated." So, in order to "regulate" that amendment she must define whether to her it is an individuals right to keep and bear arms or not. Personally I think her public definition will have two forms...pre and post election. More important perhaps is the change she will bring about on the bench of the Supreme Court...as one commentator recently said a president is there for eight years maximum...a court justice for life. So what does this have to do with us as gun owners? Plan ahead!

[foxx]

Foxx,

Assuming that Trump does NOT drop out of the race before the election.

Right, but if he does drop out, will there be 1 person stepping up to represent his general views or will several? If two "step up" to replace him, they will split the vote. Hillary will win.

[foxx]

to me this is a prime example of the real dilemma and the danger we face related not only to the 2nd amendment but to several of the others. Someone, somewhere that has governmental authority "re-defines" what an amendment says. Rather than taking the language of an amendment or law at it's plain sense meaning it is re-defined in a legally binding manner that either enlarges or reduces the scope of the original. For example hillary clinton said recently that she is a supporter of the 2nd amendment but "like the other amendments it must be regulated." so, in order to "regulate" that amendment she must define whether to her it is an individuals right to keep and bear arms or not. More important perhaps is the change she will bring about on the bench of the supreme court...as one commentator recently said a president is there for eight years maximum...a court justice for life.

amen.

[yobuck]

Actually if the republicans hadn't stayed home, Romney would have easily won the last election.
And if a few people like me hadn't been so pissed off at Bush 41 and voted for Perot, the Clintons
would never have become famous.
The numbers are there for us to win national elections if we turn out and vote.
The media will promote a hopeless situation, in order to keep us from voting, and they are all in on it including Fox.
Since when do attractive (news readers) which is all any of them are, get to have so much influence over elections.
Weve had our share of nice guys and look where we are. We don't need a nice guy to fix our problems, we need another Patten,
and Trump is the closest were going to get at this point.

[J.Baker]

Unfortunately over the last 6-8 decades we (The People) have allowed the government to predicate the idea that the Bill of Rights are rights given to us by them, not Rights guaranteed us by our creator as they were originally deemed by our founding fathers.

Just this morning I was reading an article online about how many of our civil rights would be violated by the No Fly List legislation currently being discussed by Congress. It was something like 6 or 7 specific rights protected under the Bill of Rights, with numerous others that could easily be argued as being violated as well.

For a body of people who take an oath and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States, it's astonishing how many of them deliberately try to attack and circumvent it.

[wbm]

Unfortunately over the last 6-8 decades we (The People) have allowed the government to predicate the idea that the Bill of Rights are rights given to us by them, not Rights guaranteed us by our creator as they were originally deemed by our founding fathers.

Seems to me Jim that it is the same old battle as it was in our beginnings between those who wanted a strong central government and were against a bill of rights and those who wanted a limited power central government and a bill of rights.
James Hamilton did not mix words. If a citizen in our time publicly stated what Hamilton said below they would probably be put on some sort of list or arrested for sedition and/or treason.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

So while our courts and barristers debate what the "founding fathers" really meant by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Why not just refer to what they said they meant. (By the way the use of "the right of the people" is found in the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.) Therefore, if it does not refer to the individual citizen in the 2nd how can it refer to the individual citizen in the others?

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“To disarm the people…is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams

[yobuck]

Hamilton was also in favor of the haves, meaning only property owners, having the right to vote.
Today, there's no need to even be a citizen. Lets fix the easy stuff first, much of the rest will fix itself.

[foxx]

I don't wish to alienate fellow members of the forum who support "liberal" or "conservative" national policies. I respect all, with the SINGLE exception of the question of GUN rights.

Having said that, I feel compelled to point out the traditional, SHARED respect, (on both sides) for the PRINCIPALS of our republic (our CONSTITUTION) no longer exists amongst a MINORITY of the current leaders of the democratic party.

The fact of the matter is, Obama does not respect the principal that our government must have a distinct separation of powers (Three distinct branches of the government, LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL).

He recognizes that the EXECUTIVE branch has the practical power to enforce only the laws he likes. He also has the ability to create, within the EXECUTIVE branch, departments that USURP the powers of the LEGISLATIVE branch. He is saying, without shame, that the safety of the American people depends upon the EXECUTIVE branch's ability to control who builds (or even talks about building) guns. He says if YOU build a gun, our enemies will use it against you. He says HE must stop THEM by stopping YOU. Moreover, he believes it is his EXECUTIVE right, and responsibility to do so. That is why his administration's State Department, whom EVERYONE agrees is responsible for overseeing and controlling INTERNATIONAL arms trade and production, is now trying to oversee DOMESTIC arms trade and production. Guys, that means YOU and ME.

We are NOT the enemy. We do not fall under the authority, scrutiny or jurisdiction of those controlling INTERNATIONAL arms trade. THAT is the responsibility of the ATF.

However, because Obama knew the ATF was on our radar, and knew we would not allow them to abuse us, (and, in all likelihood, even the majority of the people who make-up the ATF do not choose to abuse us), he has directed a DIFFERENT department to abuse us. That department claims the LEGISLATIVE branch gave them the authority to rule our means of gun production, but they did not. (They were directed by the legislature to rule/control INTERNATIONAL gun trade and production.) As long as that department of the EXECUTIVE branch believes they have such authority over US and, by necessity, has responsibility to protect us against US, they will execute THEIR gun-hating policies on YOU. It is not something that MIGHT happen, it is something that has ALREADY happened.

It is up to US to TAKE BACK our country and FORCE the different branches of the federal government to RESPECT their distinct and limited roles. IF we don't do so, then we will be like the rest of the world who will always suffer under the rule of the individual or group that EXECUTES their own will.

As it is, we are not electing a president (the one who executes the laws created by the elected legislature), but a KING who chooses for himself what is and is not done.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to elect a liberal king or even a conservative king. I want to elect someone who respects the fact that his/her executive actions are limited and shaped by the legislative body of elected officials.

[foxx]

Hamilton was also in favor of the haves, meaning only property owners, having the right to vote.
Today, there's no need to even be a citizen. Lets fix the easy stuff first, much of the rest will fix itself.

OMG!!!!

If you (not you, Yobuck!) lack the wherewithal to acquire a state issued picture ID so the pollsters can confirm you are who you say you are (a citizen of the United States of America who is not supposed to be incarcerated, and therefore entitled to vote), then you CLEARLY lack the wherewithal to have the sense required to have an opinion worthy of a vote.

Furthermore, ANYONE who feels their electability depends upon the judgement and votes of such inept and incapable people does not deserve my vote. I would hope EVERY responsible CITIZEN of this country would feel likewise.