California Noticed That The Second Amendment Provides No Right To Ammunition

[Lonestar_logic]

hey!!! There's no requirement to count votes in Democrat districts either!

OMFG!!!

You can vote as many times as you want, we just won't count them!!

Funny. Conservatives are really big on state issued voter ID for REGISTERED voters to fight non existent voter fraud.

sure change your tune when we talk guns .

Voter fraud non existent?

There Are Nearly 300 Cases of Voter Fraud in America

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

Don’t Think Voter Fraud Happens?

Republican National Lawyers Association | (RNLA)

North Carolina Identifies 36,000 Possible Voter Fraud Cases

A Federal Judge Searches for Voter Fraud in Wisconsin and Finds None

Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina

Voter fraud is only fraud when it helps Republicans

Voter fraud is voter fraud, period.

You may want to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, I think it's stuck

It's hard to discern sarcasm in text.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"Cigarettes don't cause cancer, smoking causes cancer!"

Oh silly billy, guns aren't responsible for gun violence! Even if you somehow got rid of all the guns, people would still die of natural causes, so why bother?!

Girl Pants Productions brings you a terrifically funny satire, completely dismantling the pro-gun argument.



This Is How The Pro-Gun Crowd Sounds To ... Well, Normal People

How do the NRA gun nutters respond to this?

Smoking does not cause lung cancer, WHO 1999 statistics. Editorial from the Journal of Theoretics


Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"Cigarettes don't cause cancer, smoking causes cancer!"

Oh silly billy, guns aren't responsible for gun violence! Even if you somehow got rid of all the guns, people would still die of natural causes, so why bother?!

Girl Pants Productions brings you a terrifically funny satire, completely dismantling the pro-gun argument.



This Is How The Pro-Gun Crowd Sounds To ... Well, Normal People

How do the NRA gun nutters respond to this?

Respond to what? Some lame-brained parody that has no redeeming value? And it's not even funny.

 

[Dan Daly]

The Second Amendment only guarantees a right to what was in existence when it was written.

Then you have no right to express yourself on da intrawebz...or to use a computer to do so. Funny how your own logic can come back and bite you in the ass, eh?

Speech is still speech. Arms ain't still arms.

Uh, no. You could not express your speech via a computer...or even a typewriter...back in those days. Using your own logic, we must only use the methods and tools that were available to us at the time. Your logic, not mine. Either apply it logically and consistently, or abandon it for the silly garbage that it is.

 

[Dan Daly]

Would the Second Amendment allow someone to own and/or carry a nuclear pistol?

The Second Amendment doesn't "allow" anything, it merely guarantees a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions. Riddle me this...who or what "allowed" our forebears to use a club...or fire...or a cutting instrument...or a wheel?

 

[kaz]

Funny. Conservatives are really big on state issued voter ID for REGISTERED voters to fight non existent voter fraud.

sure change your tune when we talk guns .

Voter fraud non existent?

There Are Nearly 300 Cases of Voter Fraud in America

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

Don’t Think Voter Fraud Happens?

Republican National Lawyers Association | (RNLA)

North Carolina Identifies 36,000 Possible Voter Fraud Cases

A Federal Judge Searches for Voter Fraud in Wisconsin and Finds None

Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina

Voter fraud is only fraud when it helps Republicans

Voter fraud is voter fraud, period.

You may want to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, I think it's stuck

It's hard to discern sarcasm in text.

You do know how much I hate Democrats, don't you? I think Matt Stone put it best: "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." That really needs to be in my sig, I'm going to fix that

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Voter fraud non existent?

There Are Nearly 300 Cases of Voter Fraud in America

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

Don’t Think Voter Fraud Happens?

Republican National Lawyers Association | (RNLA)

North Carolina Identifies 36,000 Possible Voter Fraud Cases

A Federal Judge Searches for Voter Fraud in Wisconsin and Finds None

Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina

Voter fraud is only fraud when it helps Republicans

Voter fraud is voter fraud, period.

You may want to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, I think it's stuck

It's hard to discern sarcasm in text.

You do know how much I hate Democrats, don't you? I think Matt Stone put it best: "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." That really needs to be in my sig, I'm going to fix that

I will try to remember that you and I are on the same side.

 

[Rotagilla]

Anti-Gun advocates will likely go this route. You'll probably have to prove you're legally able to own a firearm before purchasing Ammo. Looks like that's in our future.

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

 

[Rotagilla]

This is an oldie but goldie Lakhota Actually the bitch that came at this angle was a Canuck. Douche bag and all.

Hit the ammo. The game is to make the ammo so up there in cost that no one can afford it. Phewwwwwwwwwwww.

Hehehehehe.

This is sort of stalled because people like myself and my husband can do not only black powder but we know how to whack em and stack em. With black powder or bows.

Now you are a pretend indian. But I'd like you to picture my back yard. Pretend you are First Nations. My back yard consists of acres of sunflowers this year. I walk through it to the woods daily.

They don't understand people like us at all. They don't have a clue that we can caste our own bullets.

We are free. I won't give this up ever. And I am awesome with my bow.

Barnett Quad 400, here....VERY effective...

 

[Rotagilla]

Therefore, I can legally own a nuclear pistol.

"nuclear pistol"....
Sure you can..you just can't have the "ammo"...

..since you're now completely abandoning your position and resorting to ridiculous fantasy...What the heck..you can own "photon torpedoes" , "phasers", "intergalactic cruisers" and "tie fighters", too, if you want.

 

[Dan Daly]

"nuclear pistol"....
Sure you can..you just acn't one the ammo...

..since you're now completely abandoning your position and resorting to ridiculous fantasy...What the heck..you can own "photon torpedoes" , "phasers", "intergalactic cruisers" and "tie fighters", too, if you want.

Can I keep my Super Helmet 7?

 

[Rotagilla]

"nuclear pistol"....
Sure you can..you just acn't one the ammo...

..since you're now completely abandoning your position and resorting to ridiculous fantasy...What the heck..you can own "photon torpedoes" , "phasers", "intergalactic cruisers" and "tie fighters", too, if you want.

Can I keep my Super Helmet 7?

Only with a permit...

 

[2aguy]

Gun registration is totally constitutional . In the flip side , you couldn't ban ammunition . That would violate the 2nd .

Looks like the left is learning from the right and their bogus laws designed to eliminate abortion in Texas .

They're not proposing banning ammunition. They're proposing requiring background checks to purchase it. And i think that is where we're headed.

If you pass a background check for a firearm it stands to reason you would pass a background check for the ammo. DUH!

And if you get your gun illegally, you will get your ammo illegally too….DUH!

There is no need for an ammo background check. If you use ammo to break the law you can and will be arrested. There you do….all done.

 

[2aguy]

Would the Second Amendment allow someone to own and/or carry a nuclear pistol?

The Second Amendment doesn't "allow" anything, it merely guarantees a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions. Riddle me this...who or what "allowed" our forebears to use a club...or fire...or a cutting instrument...or a wheel?

Actually, the 2nd Amendment simply states in writing what a Right that we have above and beyond government action or inaction.…it doesn't grant anything.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The far left wants abortion....wants no compromise.

The far right wants total gun access....wants no compromise.

I love listening to the two of them squeal at each other about how wrong they are on each issue.

When, in many ways, it's really the same issue.

Perceived rights.

The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.

So is it really the same issue?

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

No you don't.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

With each post, I see I understand it much better than you....

Please tell me that you think this applies to all laws and I'll understand that you really have no clue about federalism or the context in which it was written.

And I'll look forward to you explaining why states wrote the same language into their respective state constitutions.

Or how state sponsored religions existed.

 

[paulitician]

Gun registration is totally constitutional . In the flip side , you couldn't ban ammunition . That would violate the 2nd .

Looks like the left is learning from the right and their bogus laws designed to eliminate abortion in Texas .

They're not proposing banning ammunition. They're proposing requiring background checks to purchase it. And i think that is where we're headed.

If you pass a background check for a firearm it stands to reason you would pass a background check for the ammo. DUH!

Criminals purchase ammunition all the time. They do own firearms. That's the reality. Background checks for ammunition will make it harder for them to get it. And that's the idea. You'll eventually have to show some sort of 'Ammunition License' to purchase it. I'm not saying i support it, but i do think it's coming.

 

[Dan Daly]

The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.

So is it really the same issue?

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

No you don't.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

With each post, I see I understand it much better than you....

Please tell me that you think this applies to all laws and I'll understand that you really have no clue about federalism or the context in which it was written.

And I'll look forward to you explaining why states wrote the same language into their respective state constitutions.

Or how state sponsored religions existed.

I'd be interested to hear your understanding of the 14th amendment and some of its interpretations in relation to the Federalist thinking that existed prior.

 

[Dan Daly]

Gun registration is totally constitutional . In the flip side , you couldn't ban ammunition . That would violate the 2nd .

Looks like the left is learning from the right and their bogus laws designed to eliminate abortion in Texas .

They're not proposing banning ammunition. They're proposing requiring background checks to purchase it. And i think that is where we're headed.

If you pass a background check for a firearm it stands to reason you would pass a background check for the ammo. DUH!

Criminals purchase ammunition all the time. They do own firearms. That's the reality. Background checks for ammunition will make it harder for them to get it. And that's the idea. You'll eventually have to show some sort of 'Ammunition License' to purchase it. I'm not saying i support it, but i do think it's coming.

You're funny. Outright bans on criminals getting firearms, let alone background checks, haven't made it harder for criminals to get firearms...and you think background checks on ammo are going to make it harder for them to get ammo?

The only thing that is "coming" are the orgasms morons get when thinking up this bullshit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.

So is it really the same issue?

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

No you don't.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

With each post, I see I understand it much better than you....

Please tell me that you think this applies to all laws and I'll understand that you really have no clue about federalism or the context in which it was written.

And I'll look forward to you explaining why states wrote the same language into their respective state constitutions.

Or how state sponsored religions existed.

State sponsored religion was disestablished in almost every case before the Constitution was even ratified.

You believe that states do not have to abide by the Constitution and you are completely wrong.

 

[paulitician]

Anti-Gun advocates will likely go this route. You'll probably have to prove you're legally able to own a firearm before purchasing Ammo. Looks like that's in our future.

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

You may need a license to reload at some point as well.