Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

[bripat9643]

Wrong, moron. You can't be arrested for stealing from your wife because be definition everything is community property.

So, if I steal my wife's car, it's not actually stealing?

No, because it's community property if it was purchased after you were married.

 

[SwimExpert]

Wrong, moron. You can't be arrested for stealing from your wife because be definition everything is community property.

So, if I steal my wife's car, it's not actually stealing?

No, because it's community property if it was purchased after you were married.

You are incorrect. You can be charged with a felony. This kind of thing comes up in divorces alot.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Wrong, moron. You can't be arrested for stealing from your wife because be definition everything is community property.

So, if I steal my wife's car, it's not actually stealing?

No, because it's community property if it was purchased after you were married.

You are incorrect. You can be charged with a felony. This kind of thing comes up in divorces alot.

Depends on local and state laws, I would imagine.

 

[SwimExpert]

My brother got thrown in jail because he took her cell phone when she threatened to call the police on him. Calling the police was her favorite tactic. She did it three times previously

So....your brother got thrown in jail for theft. Cool story.

OMG, you were just starting to sound respectable and then this ^^^^

If it were anyone else, I'd have asked him to elaborate, pointing out that theft is a crime after all. But it's bripat. He's a fucking idiot and is most amusing when coaxed into slobbering all over himself.

 

[SwimExpert]

Wrong, moron. You can't be arrested for stealing from your wife because be definition everything is community property.

So, if I steal my wife's car, it's not actually stealing?

No, because it's community property if it was purchased after you were married.

You are incorrect. You can be charged with a felony. This kind of thing comes up in divorces alot.

Depends on local and state laws, I would imagine.

Yes, there is a degree of variation and nuance. But most of the time, it will be a felony.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, moron. You can't be arrested for stealing from your wife because be definition everything is community property.

So, if I steal my wife's car, it's not actually stealing?

No, because it's community property if it was purchased after you were married.

You are incorrect. You can be charged with a felony. This kind of thing comes up in divorces alot.

No you can't. Your name is on the title, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, moron. You can't be arrested for stealing from your wife because be definition everything is community property.

So, if I steal my wife's car, it's not actually stealing?

No, because it's community property if it was purchased after you were married.

You are incorrect. You can be charged with a felony. This kind of thing comes up in divorces alot.

Depends on local and state laws, I would imagine.

Yes, there is a degree of variation and nuance. But most of the time, it will be a felony.

It's only stealing if she owned the car before you got married. Otherwise, it's community property. How can you be arrested for "stealing" your own property.

 

[bripat9643]

My brother got thrown in jail because he took her cell phone when she threatened to call the police on him. Calling the police was her favorite tactic. She did it three times previously

So....your brother got thrown in jail for theft. Cool story.

OMG, you were just starting to sound respectable and then this ^^^^

If it were anyone else, I'd have asked him to elaborate, pointing out that theft is a crime after all. But it's bripat. He's a fucking idiot and is most amusing when coaxed into slobbering all over himself.

In other words, you know the facts aren't on your side.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's only stealing if she owned the car before you got married. Otherwise, it's community property. How can you be arrested for "stealing" your own property.

Nope. But I understand. It's hard to have knowledge when you're CNS doesn't extend past your pituitary gland.

 

[SwimExpert]

No you can't. Your name is on the title, moron.

No, her name is on the title.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

The "strict scrutiny" test is bullshit. Where does the Constitution mention it? It's just one more excuse in a long list the government contrived to violate your rights.

Do you agree that the 1st amendment's establishment clause does not protect human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony?
Legally speaking, why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

I argue that background checks are a form of prior restraint and therefore violate the 2nd. -- the state may not presume all who seek to bu a gun are 'guilty' doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by passing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.

Of course it does... the feckless attempts to claim otherwise merely proves the desperation, which they're currently experiencing... and for good reason.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you agree that the 1st amendment's establishment clause doe snot protect human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony?
legally speaking, why?

Religious sacrifice does not serve the rights of the individual... it literally rejects the fundamental american principle that we are ALL endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.

Therefore the RIGHT to one's life is SUSTAINED THROUGH THE DEFENSE OF ONE'S MEANS and the means of other innocents, to exercise their LIFE.

FTR: This is also how we know that 'The Right to Privacy, does not provide a "RIGHT" to murder one's inconvenient, pre-born children.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Over a century, in fact.

It was even upheld by the SCOTUS, obviously a good thing!

In the Leftisphere the Supreme Court can do no wrong. The idea that even the courts are subject to the Constitution is a foreign concept to them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you agree that the 1st amendment's establishment clause doe snot protect human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony?
legally speaking, why?

Religious sacrifice does not serve the rights of the individual... it literally rejects the fundamental american principle that we are ALL endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.
Therefore the RIGHT to one's life is SUSTAINED THROUGH THE DEFENSE OF ONE'S MEANS and the means of other innocents, to exercise their LIFE.
FTR: This is also how we know that 'The Right to Privacy, does not provide a "RIGHT" to murder one's inconvenient, pre-born children.

OK... and if he who would be sacrificed makes the choice to be sacrificed.... does the 1st amendment protect those who kill him?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you agree that the 1st amendment's establishment clause doe snot protect human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony?
legally speaking, why?

Religious sacrifice does not serve the rights of the individual... it literally rejects the fundamental american principle that we are ALL endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.
Therefore the RIGHT to one's life is SUSTAINED THROUGH THE DEFENSE OF ONE'S MEANS and the means of other innocents, to exercise their LIFE.
FTR: This is also how we know that 'The Right to Privacy, does not provide a "RIGHT" to murder one's inconvenient, pre-born children.

OK... and if he who would be sacrificed makes the choice to be sacrificed.... does the 1st amendment protect those who kill him?

The right to life, comes intrinsically with the responsibility to defend the means to exercise that life... there is no sound moral justification which provides for the taking of innocent life. (Although I am a proponent of such, where disease has crippled the life and the end of such is known to be defined by prolonged, incomprehensible pain.

Naturally, some will disagree, and they can bring their contests, but they're not going to care for how it goes for them.)

Edit: Short answer to your question is: No.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Didn

That part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

Only boot-licking government toadies believe the government can abridge your rights. The constitution says your rights can be abridged only by "due process of law." That means a jury trial. That's the only way your rights can be abridged. The ATF doesn't have the authority to abridge your 2nd Amendment rights with some Obama Executive Order.

You just proved my argument!

Also, apparently you've not heard of gun permits, etc.

Jury trial. LOL.

So the existence of gun permits is proof that they're valid? Circular dumbass reasoning.

Jim Crow must have been good because it existed for decades!

Over a century, in fact.

Less than a century, actually. Jim Crow didn't start until after first Civil Rights Act was declared unconstitutional in 1883.

Incorrect, but a lot of people believe that. The original Jim Crow laws were passed long before the Civil war in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio to prevent runaway slaves from settling. Jim Crow, originally called the Black Codes, was a series of laws that prevented negros from finding work, owning property, squatting, malingering, or doing anything except passing right on through. They because so popular that the states neighboring Illinois, Ohio and Indiana passed similar legislation.

The reason this gets lost in history is because new Jim Crow laws were passed after the war during Reconstruction, but instead of calling them the Black Codes, as they were originally called, in 1865 the laws were dubbed "Jim Crow" after a white performer who painted himself black and performed comedy skits in Pennsylvania and New York in 1832. Though the name Jim Crow was around before the Civil War, the name was applied to laws inspired by the pre-war Black Codes all the way until 1933.

 

[bripat9643]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

The "strict scrutiny" test is bullshit. Where does the Constitution mention it? It's just one more excuse in a long list the government contrived to violate your rights.

Do you agree that the 1st amendment's establishment clause does not protect human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony?
Legally speaking, why?

Because every human has a right to life. You can't practice that religion without violating the rights of other citizens. There is no right to prevent your neighbour from owning a machine gun.

 

[kaz]

I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.

Yes, it covers ammo