But in the faint hope you might be open to reason and evidence, I’ll let you in on something your favorite media sources probably never focused on. You claim to be outraged over violations of terrs being held without charge, that this violates core jurisprudence. Well do you know the Feds claimed that FBI sniper Horiuchi couldn’t be charged with murder because he was just following orders?

That’s right, your buds in the Clinton justice department including Eric Holder were using the Nuremberg Defense to justify acts of murder. In 1992 Horiuchi shot three people, killing one, while following illegal orders from his superiors. Years later in Boundary County Idaho, prosecuters charged Horiuchi with manslaughter. Horiuchi’s principle defense was to force the trial into Federal Court and then claim Immunity from State law because he was acting as a Federal agent.

The Clinton administration (and fellow travelers) promotion of such an obscene twisting of due process is a mountain of injustice compared to the molehills you whine about from the Bush administration. A license to kill innocent Americans trumps holding without charges illegal combatants. It’s why I don’t take your complaints seriously, because I know how agenda driven they are. As long as the ‘right people’ are violating the law and the victims are people you dislike, then it’s not injustice as far as you’re concerned.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/080601/new_freeh.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Knee-Shall-Bow-Tragedy/dp/0061011312/ref=sr_1_1/192-9813972-7768303?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227173345&sr=1-1

It’s too bad you didn’t watch the 1995 Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearings which investigated the Ruby Ridge incident. I did.

I never once said that I did not care about the other infringements that the current administration has enacted. But you seem to think that an infringement on the 2A shouldn’t be worried about until the legislation is on the table? Wrong.

Clinton enacted an AWB in ’94 and it lasted 10 years. Obama states that he would support an renewal which would encompass even more weapons. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE GUN, IT’S ABOUT RIGHTS!! I think we can BOTH agree on this, can’t we?? It’s principle! He supported DC’s ban on handguns. He believes that the 2A is contingent upon geographic location. Are you saying that it is foolish to question his position until it is a few minutes away from a vote?

This thread all started with an extremely poor attempt by the administrator to correlate increased gun sales with a derrogatory stereotype of rural citizens. It had nothing to do with habeus corpus as a whole.

I haven’t said one word about wanting to take your guns away. I haven’t said a single word about not upholding 2nd Amendment rights. Although not a gun owner, I am not a gun-grabber in the least. My point, which you fellers seem to have a problem grasping, is that you guys are getting your panties tied up in knots about your perception of a potential, hypothetical situation where Obama takes all your guns away from you. This is not certain to happen. Hell, it may not even be likely to happen. No one in the future Obama administration is talking about this. Meanwhile, our current administration has actually, ALREADY, dissolved some of our rights. Habeus corpus, for one.

You guys are all paranoid over a hypothetical potential, while not giving two shits about shit that’s actually happened.

That is why you get no sympathy from me. You claim to want to uphold the constitution, but only when it comes to items that are personally important to you. You don’t care about actual infringements on human rights, only potential infringements that may or may not come to pass.

Your priorities are messed up.

But it’s difficult to ascertain a person’s position on a subject when the retort is rife with personal attacks and incoherent ramblings. Rereading Mambo’s post, it does not sound like he was advocating the preservation of ALL rights protected by the COTUS, only the rights HE believed were important. And he made it abundantly clear that a belief in the 2A was nothing more than “gunloonery.”

And even if we agree to disagree about our interpretations of inalienable rights/created rights, it would seem that you yourself must agree that Obama’s interpretation of the COTUS creating rights is completely inaccurate, yes? Because to support him, you would have to take the position that a human’s right to self defense didn’t exist until the COTUS was ratified??

Thank you. Exactly my point. It was Mambo who suggested that my 2A rights weren’t as important than prisoners’ rights, and that because HE believes that the Habeas Corpus issue should take precedent above 2A issues. Not me. And certainly not the other way around.

Thank you. Exactly my point. It was Mambo who suggested that my 2A rights weren’t as important than prisoners’ rights. Not me. And certainly not the other way around.

And the grenade launchers are still controlled. The “mounting points” are there for two reasons: 1) it simplifies the manufacturing if they just put the attachment points for the military-grade stuff on all of ‘em, and 2) it’s the equivalent of vehicular “bling” — sort of like the fake hood tiedowns people put on their cars.

It’s utterly ineffective as far as making the weapons more dangerous, but that didn’t matter in the least. As I said, it was the “scary-looking guns” ban.

And Molon Labe… sorry, but other people’s Constitutional rights aren’t subject to your approval. No matter how much you rant about it.

J.

Other than an showing an obvious need for an anger management class, you’re post is completely contradictory.

You’re preaching about misplaced priorities, yet holding the value of what YOU think should be a priority in a higher regard than the next person. Doesn’t work that way.

And if you’re under the delusion that a gun ban isn’t likely to be given serious consideration under Obama and a democratic Congress, you are either naive, ignorant, or just afraid to stray from the herd and the spoonfeeding that the media and Obama campaign has given you. Looking at someone’s voting record in an effort to ascertain their position on these issues isn’t rocket science. Obama’s voting record shows a blatent disregard for the 2nd Amendment. His web site even says that he believes that the bill of rights CREATES an individual RKBA! CREATES?? I didn’t know an inalienable right could be created by the constitution?? You’d think he’d understand this concept, being a constitutional lawyer and all…..

In any event, I do appreciate the personal attacks. Especially the “scared little bitch” part. It proves time and time again that the best ally of a pro-gunner is the anti-gunner himself.

Stay classy.

Excuse the fuck out of me, Molon, if I get pissed off that you guys are already whining about something that you think the President-elect might try to do, if he ever gets around to it, months or years down the line, even though he hasn’t said shit about it recently…. while ignoring the things that have ALREADY happened in the last eight years.

Excuse the fuck out of me, Molon, if I point out the fact that you assholes have misplaced priorities. I don’t give a damn about whether you can have a fucking assault weapon. This is a ridiculous conversation to be having. There are bigger issues at stake now.

“However, I do live in the outskirts of a high crime city. So excuse me if my [hypothetical] right to protect myself [if Obama ever does think about banning guns, which he hasn't indicated on the campaign] is more of a [fucking ridiculous] concern to me than someone else’s financial problems or views about how prisoners should be treated. [Fuck those guys, am I right? Who gives a shit about the financial problems millions of Americans have? I got mine. Also, screw prisoners. I’m more concerned with my guns than about the fair treatment of other human beings. Also, I’m a scared little bitch that can’t understand how anyone might survive in a city without a fucking assault weapon.”

There, I fixed if for you.

Certainly there are important issues other than gun rights facing society. But let that up to the individual to determine its importance in relation to its relevance within their own life. I have a secure job, protected investments, and wasn’t a complete idiot when I bought my house and never thought that buying a house which cost $200(k) more than I could afford, with a variable rate, could ever be a good idea.

However, I do live in the outskirts of a high crime city. So excuse me if my right to protect myself is more of a concern to me than someone else’s financial problems or views about how prisoners should be treated.

When you consider pending local legislation like A2116 in the NJ assembly, which if passed, would ban certain muskets, flint locks, shotguns and yes, even marshmallow guns (I’m not kidding), simply based on the size of the hole in the barrel, you can understand why gun-rights advocates are concerned with incrememtal infringement. Obama SAYS he’s not going to “take folks guns”, but to blindly accept a statement which totally contradicts his voting record, is a little naive.

Since there are some people who hunt with large caliber handguns, shotguns, and considering that previous legislation proposed by Ted Kennedy would have outlawed most hunting ammunition, YES, I am concerned about a Democratic administration taking away hunting guns/ammo. But what’s worse, is that Obama pays almost no attention to the other 4/5ths of gun owners. Since only 1/5th of gun owners hunt, most of us are concerned about self protection rights, not hunting.

BTW, it’s good to see people like mambochicken23 adding such intellegence to the debate. You can always count on an erratic left winger for a few “It’s Bush’s Fault!(tm)” meme’s.