Obama trying to change the 2nd admendment through executive order.

[QUOTE="I"]

Also: Just so we're clear, you were hoping that the President was going to declare an article of the Constitution void? That right?

MgamerBD

But I was hoping the president would do it.

That answers my question. It's good that you're open to allowing one man to arbitrarily rescind articles of the Constitution over an issue like gun rights, just because you don't care for it.

EDIT: @coolbeans...

And firearms deaths account for about half a percent of deaths in the US (source: CDC). If you want a dictatorial use of power that'll actually make a difference, ban tobacco.

There is no way clicking on one of these topics can end well. Either it's true and I'm pissed, or it's sensationalistic bull spit anything and I'm pissed. I assumed it was the latter, taking into consideration the topic creator, and was correct.

FREEDOM.

coolbeans90

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]

I was hoping this was true. We don't need the second amendment anymore. I'm also tired of these gun nuts correlating statistics.

MgamerBD

I know. Research can be a motherf***er when it disagrees with your opinions.

Also: Just so we're clear, you were hoping that the President was going to declare an article of the Constitution void? That right?

Do you have any understanding of how the Constitution is changed?

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

I know. Research can be a motherf***er when it disagrees with your opinions.

Also: Just so we're clear, you were hoping that the President was going to declare an article of the Constitution void? That right?

worlock77

Do you have any understanding of how the Constitution is changed?

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

xaos

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

There is no way clicking on one of these topics can end well. Either it's true and I'm pissed, or it's sensationalistic bull spit anything and I'm pissed. I assumed it was the latter, taking into consideration the topic creator, and was correct.

FREEDOM.

ristactionjakso

That doesn't really alleviate any of my concerns.

The 2nd Amendment is so that the people can bear arms to overthrow a corrupt government.

Seems just the slightest bit convenient of him to change this particular amendment...

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

xaos

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

xaos

It says arms not guns... Who says that the guys who wrote that didn't mean their arms?ModernMuhCow

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Jandurin

I doubt it; I think he is illiterate.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

People need to understand something. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

coolbeans90

I doubt it; I think he is illiterate.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] you still haven't even read the article?Jandurin

I doubt it; I think he is illiterate.

I doubt he can do nearly as much damage to gun rights as the article tries to make it sound like. He is just trying to make the left wing feel like he's throwing them a bone by "exploring options," but the president does not have the authority to take away gun rights and anyone who says that is seriously stretching. The worst he could do is nominate extremely liberal judges who would bench legislate a new interpretation of the second ammendment that nullifies it, but even that is highly unlikely since there are no more judges currently serving who would likely be willing to retire until the next president has been elected, whether that's in 2012 or 2016, and they'd have to be vetted by a house and congres that is heavily republican. It's not like presidents can do whatever they want and only follow the rule of law because of politeness.