Good Guy Chris Christie should be a model for how all Republicans act

[Deleted]

If it's not declared then it's not a war zone, is it?



For the third time; Obama issued an executive order to the effect of closing Gitmo. However, doing so takes - guess what - money. Congress refused to provide the funds necessary, ergo he couldn't do it.



Probably because the NDAA is necessary in order to fund the Department of Defense.



This has already been established as an invalid argument by common law in the United States. The right to bear arms is not limitless, period.

No, it's still a warzone.

If the President passes an executive order then Congress has to abide by it.

What is the point in having a department of defense when it doesn't even defend its people, but instead attacks them by violating their rights? Obama broke the law in signing NDAA, and so did any other congress person that signed it. They violated their oaths, and violated your rights. I don't understand why liberals care so little about their rights.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's easy to understand what that means.

[Elegiac]

No, it's still a warzone.

Warzone: an area where a war is taking place.

If the President passes an executive order then Congress has to abide by it.

False. Executive orders cannot override constitutionally defined powers; the Congress controls the budget, it's as simple as that.

What is the point in having a department of defense when it doesn't even defend its people, but instead attacks them by violating their rights. Obama broke the law in signing NDAA, and so did any other congress person that signed it. They violated their oaths, and violated your rights. I don't understand why liberals care so little about their rights.

I don't see how bitching about the DoD is relevant. My guess is this: rather than be left unable to fund the DoD, Obama decided to let the issue slide and hope that the NDAA's provisions would be rectified at a later date. Either that or use it as a lever for a compromise of some sort.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's easy to understand what that means.

What does "arms" constitute, then? What does "keep" mean in this context?

[Endus]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's easy to understand what that means.

It sure is. It does not mean what you apparently think it does, though. It has never stated "the right to keep and bear ANY arms", for instance. That's why you can't have a nuclear weapon in your basement, or drive an M1 Abrams to work. Assault weapons bans are merely an extension of that same principle.

Again, the NFA and GCA have been in place for decades, and have been scrutinized multiple times by SCOTUS over exactly the kinds of appeals you're making. And every time, they rule against the appeal. Because it's wrong. It is based on a faulty understanding of what the 2nd Amendment is and protects.

And again; SCOTUS are the ones who decide that. Not the President. And definitely not Random Internet User #45217E5

[Deleted]

Warzone: an area where a war is taking place.



False. Executive orders cannot override constitutionally defined powers; the Congress controls the budget, it's as simple as that.



I don't see how bitching about the DoD is relevant. My guess is this: rather than be left unable to fund the DoD, Obama decided to let the issue slide and hope that the NDAA's provisions would be rectified at a later date. Either that or use it as a lever for a compromise of some sort.



What does "arms" constitute, then? What does "keep" mean in this context?

Executive orders are there to enforce the law. If the Congress is actively breaking the law by funding Gitmo, then an Executive order can cut their funding of it.

I'm not bitching about the DoD. It's not a guess whether Obama broke the law while signing the NDAA, he did indeed break the law. So did ever other Congress person that voted on it.

You can look up the definition of armaments whenever you want to, same with keep. I'm not your dictionary.

[Endus]

You can look up the definition of armaments whenever you want to, same with keep. I'm not your dictionary.

The National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act have good definitions. Going by those, you're wrong.

[Elegiac]

Executive orders are there to enforce the law. If the Congress is actively breaking the law by funding Gitmo, then an Executive order can cut their funding of it.

What part of "it takes money to close down Gitmo" do you fail to understand?

I'm not bitching about the DoD. It's not a guess whether Obama broke the law while signing the NDAA, he did indeed break the law. So did ever other Congress person that voted on it.

In which case you can take it to the Supreme Court and have it struck down.

You can look up the definition of armaments whenever you want to, same with keep. I'm not your dictionary.

I'm not asking for the layman's definition. I'm asking for a legal definition.

[Deleted]

The National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act have good definitions. Going by those, you're wrong.

That's funny. I thought we were talking about the only relevant law when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. Hint: It's the second law mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

[Endus]

That's funny. I thought we were talking about the only relevant law when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. Hint: It's the second law mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

So you think every American has the right to own a nuclear arsenal, or maintain stocks of weaponized anthrax?

Edit: You're also ignoring the original Articles of the Constitution, which clearly allow for Congress to pass those laws you're pretending don't exist. If you're only supporting the parts of the Constitution that you feel like, you're not really arguing for the Constitution's value as a document, you're just trying to cherry pick things to support your preconceptions.

[Elegiac]

That's funny. I thought we were talking about the only relevant law when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. Hint: It's the second law mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

And in that statement you've demonstrated the inability to understand the totality of the body of US law.

The fact of the matter is this; the rights as defined in the first 10 amendments of the Constitution are deliberately somewhat vague - it is up to the judiciary to determine specific, contemporaneous clarifications. Statute law as passed by Congress, unless it is struck down by the US Supreme Court, is legally "relevant" when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Thanks for playing.

[Halicia]

Warzone: an area where a war is taking place.

"an area where a war is taking place or there is some other violent conflict"

word for word from the googled definition... funny how you clipped off the second part of that definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Warzone

[Deleted]

What part of "it takes money to close down Gitmo" do you fail to understand?



In which case you can take it to the Supreme Court and have it struck down.



I'm not asking for the layman's definition. I'm asking for a legal definition.

It doesn't take money to close down Gitmo. Just stop funding it, it'll eventually close down.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14...in-for-freedom

The definition to words are definition to words. I suppose if you're like Obama you'll say something like this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw

The good part starts at 5:00.

[vindicatorx]

It doesn't take money to close down Gitmo. Just stop funding it, it'll eventually close down.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14...in-for-freedom

The definition to words are definition to words. I suppose if you're like Obama you'll say something like this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw

The good part starts at 5:00.

Wow, just got here and been reading the last few pages it's like explaining something to a wall with this guy. We get it you love guns and hate Obama and want to blame him for everything bad in the world. Seriously though you seem to be ignorant on a lot of what you are talking about.

[Endus]

It doesn't take money to close down Gitmo. Just stop funding it, it'll eventually close down.

You do realize that's what Congress voted down, right? It was proposed to stop funding it, Congress voted to keep doing so.

The President isn't King. He can't just say "I decree that this happens, and it shall be so." He has to work with Congress on things like this.

[Elegiac]

It doesn't take money to close down Gitmo. Just stop funding it, it'll eventually close down.

Yeah, and what is going to be done with the prisoners still incarcerated there?

Transferring prisoners takes money.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14...in-for-freedom

Your point being what?

[Deleted]

And in that statement you've demonstrated the inability to understand the totality of the body of US law.

The fact of the matter is this; the rights as defined in the first 10 amendments of the Constitution are deliberately somewhat vague - it is up to the judiciary to determine specific, contemporaneous clarifications. Statute law as passed by Congress, unless it is struck down by the US Supreme Court, is legally "relevant" when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Thanks for playing.

Lol. Your welcome for playing. Anyway, the Bill of Rights are not vague at all. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is not vague at all. Stop making BS up. The Second Amendment is all that is relevant, and a Supreme Court ruling is never completely relevant considering there are so many different rulings on the same thing through out Supreme Court history. Btw, they're not all the same ruling.

[oplawlz]

Isn't there a specific thread for gun control? Just sayin.

As a side note, crazily on-topic, Christie is a pretty hip cat, and I'd certainly vote for him if he ran, especially if it was against clinton.

[Endus]

Lol. Your welcome for playing. Anyway, the Bill of Rights are not vague at all. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is not vague at all. Stop making BS up. The Second Amendment is all that is relevant, and a Supreme Court ruling is never completely relevant considering there are so many different rulings on the same thing through out Supreme Court history. Btw, they're not all the same ruling.

If I have to pick between what some random dude on the Internet thinks the Bill of Rights means, or what constitutional scholars and the Supreme Court Justices think it means, I'm gonna stick with the latter.

[Radux]

This topic has gone wildly off topic. And since no one is discussing anything remotely related to the original post, I'm going to close this down.

Locked.