FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


There must be something wrong with this statement?





jmraker
President Obama took an oath to "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States


One would assume that the president is required to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend every part of the constitution including the 2nd amendment (the part about the right of citizens to own weapons) whether they like it or not.

Obama took the oath twice (and is going to do it again soon) to do all of that and then proposed ways to break that oath
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/01/politics/obama-gun-control-plan/index.html
It does not preserve, protect or defend the 2nd amendment.

Did obama break the oath of the presidency or not?
Also, what exactly are the repercussions of him breaking the oath he took?
deanhills
I agree with you jmraker. The constitution would have to be changed first. Secondly, this should be a matter for States to decide and not the Federal Government. I really hope Obama does not get his way. Not so much because of the regulations, as they are good, but the symbolic impact it is going to have on the rights of citizens. Once he has his foot in the door, he could potentially piggyback many other rules and regulations that may lead to invasion of privacy of citizens. Before you know it police can raid houses willy nilly when they feel like it. I'd fight back in a meaningful way.
soshite
Well... this can get kind of complicated. A long time ago, many people were afraid of the monarchy. Many people did not want big government because they were afraid the government would get too powerful and it would be a king in place, not the people, as with King George III. But what many modern people don't understand, is their real meaning behind that. If the founding fathers were around today, I guarantee that they will agree with many progressive points, and it's because, progressives aren't out to take your guns away, no. Gun control is about background checks.

Take this for example: I live in Utah. Utah is one of the reddest states in the Union, and it's also one of the most lax gun control laws. You can just walk into a shop and buy an assault rifle. I mean, don't you think that's kind of an issue? That a mad man can just walk into a gun shop with intent to kill 40 kids (not referring to CT btw), buy a bunch of guns, without any id or questions or a background check, and go to another state and commit a massacre? I mean, you don't see the problem in that?

What people don't understand is they think that the government is going to come to your house and just take your guns. Noooo, that's not it at all, because if that was the case, Progressives would be against that, I would be against that. I like guns, I don't own one yet but I'll probably buy one soon, and go out to the shooting range, but I would also feel better if they did background checks on me and anyone else. I know I'm not going to go shoot anyone, and that's fine, but people don't know that. All gun control will do is enact more background checks and regulation, but in no way will they come and take your right to bear arms. But like any other punishment, you shoot 10 people, you no longer get to buy guns for say a couple years. It's only logical.

But there's a whole different side to it as well. We regulate, or at least try to, to an intelligent degree. For example, would you argue that a duel should have no punishments considering that two consenting adults are involved? Probably not, and I'm sure you'd probably suggest some jail time for the winner (haha). However, back in the day, dueling was outlawed in New York, and dueling was punishable by death. You might not want that now, but that's what they believed back then. So you can see why we cannot always agree with everything that they believed back then. A

EVEN then, the founding fathers could never have imagined a massacre at every corner. Or that we would become this big of a country. Everything is different now, and we also need to think differently. We need to start thinking outside the box, because if we continue to entrusting future and more modern laws on the founding fathers beliefs--if we even truly understand them--we will probably never become a space fairing race, because we will continue to believe in late 1700 styled beliefs
deanhills
soshite wrote:

But there's a whole different side to it as well. We regulate, or at least try to, to an intelligent degree.
No one said that they were against regulation. I'm all for intelligent regulation and I was quite shocked when I realized that people who bought guns in the United States had not been undergoing background checks to start off with. I'd have thought that would have been a given. Also that people were allowed to lose their guns without a proper regulation or penalty for not having them locked up in a safe and secure place. To my mind they should be held criminally liable when their guns go missing.

HOWEVER, if I understand this thread correctly it is about your constitutional rights to bear arms. When legislators start to mess around with that, they need to be careful. Like 2/3rds majority careful. My point is that if you get these regulations passed without addressing the constitutional rights issue, then Obama or any of his successors can pipe up other regulations in future that impact your constitutional rights even more negatively than now and get away with it too. The President should be held accountable for protecting the constitutional rights, or change them if needs be with a proper 2/3rds majority vote. He took an Oath to do that as well.
Ankhanu
jmraker wrote:
Did obama break the oath of the presidency or not?

Not at all. He is not making any kind of effort to remove all weapons (or even guns) from citizens... as I gather, he is after tighter regulations on the types of guns that are permitted. If he were attempting to completely disarm the populace (which he is not at all attmepting), there might be some sort of argument to be made.
coolclay
The constitution hasn't meant anything to our government for quite some time. Look at the Patriot act, the Federal Reserve, killing our citizens without trial by UAVs, and probably half the things that our government currently does.

The Executive branch, and Legislative branch haven't operated under of the constitution for quite sometime. So what Obama is proposing isn't anything new, this has been going on for quite sometime. It's just that very few have noticed and/or care.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
The constitution hasn't meant anything to our government for quite some time. Look at the Patriot act, the Federal Reserve, killing our citizens without trial by UAVs, and probably half the things that our government currently does.

The Executive branch, and Legislative branch haven't operated under of the constitution for quite sometime. So what Obama is proposing isn't anything new, this has been going on for quite sometime. It's just that very few have noticed and/or care.
This is very interesting Coolclay. So what I was concerned about has been going on for a very long time, except people have just become inured to it all? Sort of shocking to think that the US possibly is not a democracy any longer? This is a real sign of an oligarchy?
JoryRFerrell
deanhills wrote:
coolclay wrote:
The constitution hasn't meant anything to our government for quite some time. Look at the Patriot act, the Federal Reserve, killing our citizens without trial by UAVs, and probably half the things that our government currently does.

The Executive branch, and Legislative branch haven't operated under of the constitution for quite sometime. So what Obama is proposing isn't anything new, this has been going on for quite sometime. It's just that very few have noticed and/or care.
This is very interesting Coolclay. So what I was concerned about has been going on for a very long time, except people have just become inured to it all? Sort of shocking to think that the US possibly is not a democracy any longer? This is a real sign of an oligarchy?


It's always been an Oligarchy. People with power have always manipulated the access to info on our political situations. They have always had the money. We simply get to play the game, every now and again, of saying who we thought did the best job of bullshitting us. Rolling Eyes
I also find it interesting that our government is so powerful on taking away rights yet very incapable of giving them. We order people, regardless of citizenship status to be murdered with drones, but our federal government can't enforce same-sex marriage as a constitutional right (it harms no one so it's unduly depriving people of liberties)? Bullshit. What we have here is nothing new: politicians who have been bought, at every level of government, by people with even larger sums of money and power. Nothing new. It's a mafia. An Oligarchy. And you ain't gonna find it easy to get into the mafia and make real, good change, unless you work your way up the ranks of the Oligarchy. If you have proven yourself to the oligarchy, that means you have become just as corrupt as them, and are probably not there to help effect change. When Obama was running for office, I told everyone I know that I felt he was bullshitting and would do the exact same shit as Bush. That he was just going to be more of the same. I was right. Too right in fact. It's Drone-galore up in this mutha. Rolling Eyes
handfleisch
Ankhanu wrote:
jmraker wrote:
Did obama break the oath of the presidency or not?

Not at all. He is not making any kind of effort to remove all weapons (or even guns) from citizens... as I gather, he is after tighter regulations on the types of guns that are permitted. If he were attempting to completely disarm the populace (which he is not at all attmepting), there might be some sort of argument to be made.
Exactly, Ankhanu. It's amazing how people just believe anything the talk shows or FOX tells them. Those same people are ignorant and uncaring of the fact that our Constitutional rights really HAVE been weakened to almost nonexistence in other areas, like police powers of search and seizure. You don't have our media talking about that very much--because police don't randomly, recklessly violate the rights in the rich part of town.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Those same people are ignorant and uncaring of the fact that our Constitutional rights really HAVE been weakened to almost nonexistence in other areas, like police powers of search and seizure.
Perhaps their reaction is based exactly on that. They are becoming aware of how their rights have been eroded. And getting to the "no more of that" and "suspicious of new legislation" stage. Maybe they have learned that what the legislation is sold as through the media and the White House Press Releases, often turns into something completely different when it comes out at the enforcement stage. Because of the hundreds of pages that legislation turns into, nothing is every really the way it appears to be with the law. Bottom line, people are learning not to trust the system any longer.
Related topics
GIF and JPEG.
C++ TUTORIAL : INTRODUCTION TO C++
REAL music
Tutorial: Image Rollovers w/ Javascript
A soldier's rant
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
coputers jokes ! this jokes dont post here ...
What did Bush lie about?
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Is the death penalty wrong?
5+2=1
Most Muslims do have not read the Koran completly.
Age of Earth?
[Official] God - NO LONGER A STICKY
Why I quit wasting my time with Creationists
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.