Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where is the amendment that says electronic communication is protected? You argue that since ammo is not specifically mentioned that there is no right to own it but you don;t want to apply that "logic" to any other rights do you?That is why the constitution is constantly being AMENDED - therefore it's termed an AMENDMENT
God just how ignorant and dumb are you gun weirdos?
CorrectYou argue that since ammo is not specifically mentioned that there is no right to own it
This topic is about guns - and not about other rightsbut you don;t want to apply that "logic" to any other rights do you?
constitution.laws.com
If the constitution - respectively the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended (enriched via further articles) why not?And if you want to change the Constitution why are you not working on amending it instead of proposing laws that would violate it?
What applies to one right applies to all rights.Correct
This topic is about guns - and not about other rights
Ever heard about Watergate? that it also involved an illegal device to tap something that was also not known when the constitution was written?
So due to this, Nixon according to your mindset wasn't - couldn't be charged? WTF are you talking about?
Major Cases- US vs. Nixon
Major Cases- US vs. Nixon - Understand Major Cases- US vs. Nixon, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789 information needed.
If the constitution - respectively the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended (enriched via further articles) why not?
those laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment,,The same government that refuses to enforce the gun laws we already have.
Where did I state that? you idiotic gun weirdos can twist this issue around as much as you want to.
The 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms - did it mention a powder-horn and musket-balls as well?
I am a gun owner myself - and yes I will advocate a for a gun license test anytime, since I have no reasons to fear such a test or not being able to pass it - but gun weirdos obviously are dead afraid by the mere mentioning of it - respectively afraid of having to take and pass a test.
Just read up your own posts - 500 dead are insignificant, but if you stumble upon an abortion you will go all out nuts - headlining that lives matter to you.
Fact is, you don't care about lives - just your idiotic gun ideology - if you even have any firearms.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Minneapolis case that having the paper & ink were necessary for the paper to exercise its 1st amendment rights of freedom of the press. Can't be a newspaper without paper and ink. How does one exercise one's 2nd amendment rights without ammo?Show me the constitutional right to shoot a weapon/firearm.
Smith shot himself?I think it is more likely the Murder Suspect.....fired the gun accidentally, and they are blaming the 3 year old for it to keep the Murder Suspect, from being in possession of an illegal gun...
Again show me where in the constitution does it state; the right to have or to purchase musket-balls and powder-horn - Since you keep referring to an amendment from the 18th century. Or any further amendment that refers to a right towards ammo.If it's unconstitutional to require payment for one right then it is so for ALL rights.
Simple - since the 2nd amendment was clearly written towards civilians being anytime ready to be called into a militia by the government, or being members of a militia.The Supreme Court ruled in the Minneapolis case that having the paper & ink were necessary for the paper to exercise its 1st amendment rights of freedom of the press. Can't be a newspaper without paper and ink. How does one exercise one's 2nd amendment rights without ammo?
Smith shot himself?
Actually, I have served in the Army. I got my weapon in an arms room, and got my ammo when I was on the range. Back then, did the government have arms rooms to provide the arms to the men? No, they initially had to bring their own rifles. Oh yeah, did the men have to get a license from the government to have access to ammo for hunting and defense of their homes? No. So why do you want things to change now?Simple - since the 2nd amendment was clearly written towards civilians being anytime ready to be called into a militia by the government, or being members of a militia.
Once the militia arrives at the respective collection points - e.g. military garrisons for training or to go to war, they will be handed out powder-horns and musket-balls.
Have you ever served in an Army? - if yes, tell me when did you receive your ammo?
Nah, brave 3 year old protecting his mother.Yeah.....most likely situation....over the 3 year old doing it...
Hmm...is possible.Nah, brave 3 year old protecting his mother.
Yes with their muskets - and in those days it was referred to as an Arsenal (no not the English soccer-club)- and every militia member was assigned towards an Arsenal - exactly due to this reason.Actually, I have served in the Army. I got my weapon in an arms room, and got my ammo when I was on the range. Back then, did the government have arms rooms to provide the arms to the men? No, they initially had to bring their own rifles.
Do you need a license to hunt nowadays? or you just walk around and shoot any deer or bear that passes along your way? Since you supposedly have a right to go hunting. You still feel the urge to protect yourself and your wilderness farm from Red Indians? or returning and marauding Red-coats? In those day's did they have an effective police force or a Continental army in the strength relation to today's US Army? Ever heard about the National Guard?Oh yeah, did the men have to get a license from the government to have access to ammo for hunting and defense of their homes?
There are far too many irresponsible persons and weirdos around that simply shouldn't be armed - Don't you read the news and papers? - Lefty&libs have raised three generations of irresponsible people - there are countless irresponsible conservative weirdos around - who are clearly unfit to possess a firearm.No. So why do you want things to change now?
Yes with their muskets - and in those days it was referred to as an Arsenal (no not the English soccer-club)- and every militia member was assigned towards an Arsenal - exactly due to this reason.
Do you need a license to hunt nowadays? or you just walk around and shoot any deer or bear that passes along your way? Since you supposedly have a right to go hunting. You still feel the urge to protect yourself and your wilderness farm from Red Indians? or returning and marauding Red-coats? In those day's did they have an effective police force or a Continental army in the strength relation to today's US Army? Ever heard about the National Guard?
The latter is exactly the followup of the 18th century militia - do they buy their own ammo and bring their own fully automatic firearms - or do they receive it at respective installations?
There are far too many irresponsible persons and weirdos around that simply shouldn't be armed - Don't you read the news and papers? - Lefty&libs have raised three generations of irresponsible people - there are countless irresponsible conservative weirdos around - who are clearly unfit to possess a firearm.
I do not feel safe in an environment that provides guns to people such as my neighbor, who walks onto my property and points a gun at me - due to me having slapped his uneducated 12 year old little bastard - who had pointed a BB gun at my father - who in turn asked the kid to refrain from driving his motocross around on his property. Or a person who was refused being served further drinks, came back and starts to shoot up the place. And he was a known weirdo - I ain't talking about him having a mental disease - but simply an irresponsible/uncivilized weirdo.
According to you and gun weirdos, I should have shot the kid (didn't realize it was a BB gun) and blown his fathers head off - what kind of mental state do you live in?
That little bastards father simply ain't mentally fit to own a gun - which part is it you don't understand? And his little uneducated/uncivilized bastard is now an uneducated/uncivilized adult who adores guns and posses a dozen of them, and will come up with the same idiotic arguments as all those other gun weirdos.
I am not advocating a ban on weapons or specific weapons - if someone feels good and gets a hard on via parading in public with an AR-15 and wearing camo-fatigues - so be it.
So is the proposal to introduce a gun-license test - asking too much?
The Constitution clearly states that the rights enumerated in it are not the only rights of the people. You keep trying to say the government is granting people their rights when in fact our entire governmental structure is based on the philosophy that rights are inherent in each person.Again show me where in the constitution does it state; the right to have or to purchase musket-balls and powder-horn - Since you keep referring to an amendment from the 18th century. Or any further amendment that refers to a right towards ammo.
Till then good luck with your "views".
No, your arguments are stupid and totally besides the point. - see your computer - it's the government via e.g. FBI and Homeland security that decides upon your freedom of speech via a computer on the internet, - not you and free speech.The Constitution clearly states that the rights enumerated in it are not the only rights of the people. You keep trying to say the government is granting people their rights when in fact our entire governmental structure is based on the philosophy that rights are inherent in each person.
The Constitution doesn't give you the right to own a computer does it? Therefore you must have no freedom of speech via a computer , correct?
You can't even see how absolutely stupid your argument is.
Does the constitution say one has a right to have a horse? and yet no one was ever forbidden to own them or ride them.- see your: "not the only rights"...The Constitution clearly states that the rights enumerated in it are not the only rights of the people.
Once again you prove your utter ignorance.No, your arguments are stupid and totally besides the point. - see your computer - it's the government via e.g. FBI and Homeland security that decides upon your freedom of speech via a computer on the internet, - not you and free speech.
Does the constitution say one has a right to have a horse? and yet no one was ever forbidden to own them or ride them.- see your: "not the only rights"...
Did one have to pay a government fee to ride a horse? NO
But when cars and motorbikes came up - a driver license system and a fee were introduced. But I do understand that a Flintlock-Musket to you is the same as an AR-15.
Just as a car or motorbike is a horse to you.
If you object towards the idea of a gun-license test - then simply state - No I don't agree
And spare me your constitutional and amendment assumptions - since actually everyone should know that a constitutional right, and especially amendments can be changed or furthered at any given time, accordingly within the legal framework. And no one say's that it would be simple.
But the e.g. prohibition law (18th amendment) did come - and was also later repealed. It can also go the other way around, see United States v. Rahimi, and it certainly makes you and all the other gun weirdos feel good and happy, that people with a record for domestic violence are now free to own a gun and carry it in public.
And the 2nd amendment isn't just a right to bear arms - but centers around the 18th century necessity of a Militia
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And today it's called National Guard.
It isn't about owning a car or owning a gun - but using it - idiotOnce again you prove your utter ignorance.
You do not need a license to buy a car, to own a car or to drive a car on your own property. You only have to register and insure a car if you want to operate it on publicly owned property. Driver licensing is a state concern not a federal one and most states didn't even implement driver's licenses or car registrations until well into the 1930's when the number of cars and drivers was increasing exponentially and there had to be steps taken to manage traffic and other public concerns not to mention to build and maintain infrastructure
So everyone has the right to own a car just as everyone has the right to own a gun AND ammo.
The second amendment as all the other amendments concerns the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not the militia.
No, your arguments are stupid and totally besides the point. - see your computer - it's the government via e.g. FBI and Homeland security that decides upon your freedom of speech via a computer on the internet, - not you and free speech.
Does the constitution say one has a right to have a horse? and yet no one was ever forbidden to own them or ride them.- see your: "not the only rights"...
Did one have to pay a government fee to ride a horse? NO
But when cars and motorbikes came up - a driver license system and a fee were introduced. But I do understand that a Flintlock-Musket to you is the same as an AR-15.
Just as a car or motorbike is a horse to you.
If you object towards the idea of a gun-license test - then simply state - No I don't agree
And spare me your constitutional and amendment assumptions - since actually everyone should know that a constitutional right, and especially amendments can be changed or furthered at any given time, accordingly within the legal framework. And no one say's that it would be simple.
But the e.g. prohibition law (18th amendment) did come - and was also later repealed. It can also go the other way around, see United States v. Rahimi, and it certainly makes you and all the other gun weirdos feel good and happy, that people with a record for domestic violence are now free to own a gun and carry it in public.
And the 2nd amendment isn't just a right to bear arms - but centers around the 18th century necessity of a Militia
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And today it's called National Guard.
And the 2nd amendment isn't just a right to bear arms - but centers around the 18th century necessity of a Militia
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
wrongAnd today it's called National Guard.
