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.
There are no ‘gun grabbers’ – that’s a rightwing lie.Knowing how easily gun grabbers change colors in order to blend with their surrounding I bet your gonna tell me you are a lifelong NRA memberThe left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directlyI am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.
Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......
so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles
Rave on lunatic.
Advocating for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to advocate for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms.
Just because the proposal on the talble does not include taking all the guns does not mean it isnt the ultimate lib goalThere are no ‘gun grabbers’ – that’s a rightwing lie.Knowing how easily gun grabbers change colors in order to blend with their surrounding I bet your gonna tell me you are a lifelong NRA memberThe left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directlyI am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.
Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......
so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles
Rave on lunatic.
Advocating for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to advocate for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms.
Dumb ass automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal to ownIt already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you homeyou have a right to self defense regradless where you are at
True, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Actually politics got involved with gutting the 2nd Amendment which the NRA is linked toNot at all today.How did I know that was coming?Knowing how easily gun grabbers change colors in order to blend with their surrounding I bet your gonna tell me you are a lifelong NRA memberRave on lunatic.
I used to be a member until they let stupid people like you in.
There were a lot of us that were members before the NRA go involved in Politics. It used to be a fantastic public support organization that really did push hard for gun safety and education. Not so much today.
I left when the NRA became a partisan mouthpiece for the GOP and rightwing extremists.
Yes they are unconstitutionallolthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringedright to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you homeyou have a right to self defense regradless where you are at
True, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.
The State, County and Cities have the right to require you to have permits, licensing, etc. if they deem it's necessary. You want to go armed in NYC, it's your right but you have to have the proper permits and registrations to do it. The last thing cities the size of NYC needs is for every block corner to be another OK Corral. But requiring armed people on the street to receive the training and licensing seems to work out well.
To infringe would mean premits
So your state’s pistol permits are ‘un-Constitutional.’
Too funny.
But at least you’re consistent at being wrong.
To ‘infringe’ means to violate – to enact a measure repugnant to the Constitution and its case law.
To enact a measure banning handguns is an example of an infringement on the Second Amendment right, as the Heller Court held that such prohibitions are un-Constitutional.
The courts determine what the Constitution means, ultimately the Supreme Court – including what laws and measures violate the Constitution.
And until such time as the courts rule on the constitutionality of a given law or measure, that law or measure is presumed to be Constitutional, and not an infringement upon the rights and protected liberties of the people.
Actually not.It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you homeyou have a right to self defense regradless where you are at
True, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Actually not.It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you homeTrue, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
There is no infringement upon the Second Amendment right when regulations and limitations are enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law, or upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court – such as the NFA.
You are incorrect, you fricking idiot.Dumb ass automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal to ownIt already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you homeTrue, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Correct, and those limitations can be written against any arm as they have been including semi-automatic weapons as they were for automatic weapons.Actually not.It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you homeTrue, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
There is no infringement upon the Second Amendment right when regulations and limitations are enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law, or upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court – such as the NFA.
You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutionalyou do realize due process deals with the judicial system it has nothing to do with the creation of laws.and they are unconstitutional so says the 14th amendment
Unless they meet the due process requirement. Once again, you left that part out. Tell you what. I am going to make some demands to USMB. See if you agree with them. Since you like to only use part of the Constitution, I get to do the same thing. Here are my demands.
I only want to see post by people that only agree with me so we need to modify the 1st amendment. So you will have all your posts deleted and you will be banned for life
We are going to modify the 4th amendment to read that if you post one single post (just before you are banned for life) the Government shall seize your computer after ransacking your home without notice.
We are going to charge you with a crime (We'll make something up) and hold you in jail forever without allowing you to go to trial, have legal representation. In affect, make you dissappear. Yes, let's modify the 6th amendment for you rtwingnutjobs only.
While we are at it, just for you rtwingnutjobs, you can't get a jury under the 7th amendment but that's not a problem with the modified 6th amendment.
Let's throw out the 8th in your case while we are at it. No bail at all. And Hogs will live better than you.
Now, I demand these things or I am going to throw myself to the ground in a fit of rage. (and probably miss)
Careful, Ladies, The 19th may be next (ducking)
the 14th amendment was created to protect blacks from laws created by democrats that deprive them of rights other citizens have that are protected by the federal government.
And it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.
And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.
One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.
As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.
I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.
Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutionalyou do realize due process deals with the judicial system it has nothing to do with the creation of laws.Unless they meet the due process requirement. Once again, you left that part out. Tell you what. I am going to make some demands to USMB. See if you agree with them. Since you like to only use part of the Constitution, I get to do the same thing. Here are my demands.
I only want to see post by people that only agree with me so we need to modify the 1st amendment. So you will have all your posts deleted and you will be banned for life
We are going to modify the 4th amendment to read that if you post one single post (just before you are banned for life) the Government shall seize your computer after ransacking your home without notice.
We are going to charge you with a crime (We'll make something up) and hold you in jail forever without allowing you to go to trial, have legal representation. In affect, make you dissappear. Yes, let's modify the 6th amendment for you rtwingnutjobs only.
While we are at it, just for you rtwingnutjobs, you can't get a jury under the 7th amendment but that's not a problem with the modified 6th amendment.
Let's throw out the 8th in your case while we are at it. No bail at all. And Hogs will live better than you.
Now, I demand these things or I am going to throw myself to the ground in a fit of rage. (and probably miss)
Careful, Ladies, The 19th may be next (ducking)
the 14th amendment was created to protect blacks from laws created by democrats that deprive them of rights other citizens have that are protected by the federal government.
And it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.
And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.
One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.
As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.
I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.
You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?
There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.
One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.
There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.
If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?
The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?
If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?
You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?
What in the fuck does infringement mean?Actually not.It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you homeTrue, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
There is no infringement upon the Second Amendment right when regulations and limitations are enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law, or upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court – such as the NFA.
Rights can be taken away just remember that when we take voting rights away from democratsCorrect, and those limitations can be written against any arm as they have been including semi-automatic weapons as they were for automatic weapons.Actually not.It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you home
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
There is no infringement upon the Second Amendment right when regulations and limitations are enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law, or upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court – such as the NFA.
damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of warArms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutionalyou do realize due process deals with the judicial system it has nothing to do with the creation of laws.
the 14th amendment was created to protect blacks from laws created by democrats that deprive them of rights other citizens have that are protected by the federal government.
And it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.
And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.
One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.
As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.
I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.
You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?
There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.
One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.
There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.
If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?
The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?
If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?
You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?
Red herring bullshitYou are incorrect, you fricking idiot.Dumb ass automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal to ownIt already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you home
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist
What about tanks, surface to air missles, weaponized drones, nuclear bombs? They are all arms you absolute dumbshit who does not know what they are talking about.
Yes, that can happen. I would not be surprised if Trump tried to take voting rights away from anyone who does not support him.Rights can be taken away just remember that when we take voting rights away from democratsCorrect, and those limitations can be written against any arm as they have been including semi-automatic weapons as they were for automatic weapons.Actually not.It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun controlAs with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
There is no infringement upon the Second Amendment right when regulations and limitations are enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law, or upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court – such as the NFA.
At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of warArms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it ConstitutionalAnd it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.
And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.
One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.
As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.
I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.
You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?
There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.
One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.
There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.
If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?
The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?
If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?
You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?
Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutionalyou do realize due process deals with the judicial system it has nothing to do with the creation of laws.
the 14th amendment was created to protect blacks from laws created by democrats that deprive them of rights other citizens have that are protected by the federal government.
And it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.
And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.
One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.
As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.
I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.
You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?
There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.
One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.
There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.
If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?
The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?
If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?
You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?
At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states to be able to defend themself from an oppressive rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of warArms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutional
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.
One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.
As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.
I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.
You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?
There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.
One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.
There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.
If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?
The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?
If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?
You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?
I agreeArms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it ConstitutionalAnd it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.
And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.
One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.
As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.
I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.
You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?
There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.
One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.
There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.
If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?
The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?
If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?
You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?
Rightly so.
