Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

  1. -11
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,154
    vCash:
    7625
    Thanks / No Thanks
    There were privately owned cannons back in those days. Don't forget things like "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". For me the 2nd amendment is already regulated enough. No automatics, bombs, tanks, or nukes. So leave my semi-auto alone.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    LANGER72's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    9,151
    vCash:
    28719
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    There were privately owned cannons back in those days. Don't forget things like "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". For me the 2nd amendment is already regulated enough. No automatics, bombs, tanks, or nukes. So leave my semi-auto alone.

    Truth is, you can still own a small cannon if you can pass the back ground, pay the fees and use it under certain conditions for celebratory purposes only.
    I would imagine the liability insurance would be a nightmare.
    All of these larger weapons discussions just further cloud the current 2nd amendment issue. We are talking about firearms...semi auto pistols, semi auto rifles and semi auto shot guns. The fact that I cannot own a full auto if I want one is enough regulation for me.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Does anyone think that the Founding Fathers INTENTIONALLY used the term "arms" instead of muskets, swords and canons because they knew if the Republic stood long enough, better and more advanced weaponry would be produced, and their clear intent for the people to avoid government opression would be protected by the generic term included in the bill? And they also provided a process for changing that bill if the people for some reason demanded such a change.
    That process is NOT an Executive Order. This President has already shown a proclivity to ignore laws he does not deem advantageous to his party or his term. I really want him to try and use an EO to infringe on peoples RIGHTS.


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 08:06 PM
  2. Obama: GOP plan on consumer protection 'worse than the status quo'
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-08-2010, 01:32 AM
  3. Obama signs new GI Bill for 'all who serve'
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 02:21 PM
  4. Obama signs equal-pay bill
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-13-2003, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •