Massachuettes orders residents to surrender bump stocks

[DrLove]

No...moron.....again, read Haynes v. United States...it is unConstitutional...

Just about everything is "unconstitutional" to a Trumptard. I can't help you with that particular problem.

 

[Flash]

No...moron.....again, read Haynes v. United States...it is unConstitutional...

Just about everything is "unconstitutional" to a Trumptard. I can't help you with that particular problem.

When you "infringe" then you are pretty well unconstitutional when the Constitution very clearly says "shall not infringe", aren't you Moon Bat?

 

[2aguy]

No...moron.....again, read Haynes v. United States...it is unConstitutional...

Just about everything is "unconstitutional" to a Trumptard. I can't help you with that particular problem.

I cited the actual Supreme Court case....and you respond with that...wow...you are lame...

 

[xyz]

No...moron.....again, read Haynes v. United States...it is unConstitutional...

Just about everything is "unconstitutional" to a Trumptard. I can't help you with that particular problem.

The right to bear obscure accessories to firearms.

I still have some doubts about these supposed laws about bump stocks, because they are only covered by very specific news outlets.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

All I can say to this thread is......

The day you allow Leftists to disarm you is the day you become a complete slave to their madness and tyranny.
Every Leftist Imbecile on this forum totally ignores what happened in Venezuela. Most probably have no clue.
But it's EXACTLY what every one of their arguments leads to. Period.

We're being overrun with hard core Communists
Washington State governor warns DMV not to help ICE agents
Washington state gov warns driver licensing bureau not to help ICE

 

[DrLove]

I cited the actual Supreme Court case....and you respond with that...wow...you are lame...

Yes, I skimmed your BS "precedents" -

Please don't be stupid. Neither you nor I is a constitutional law scholar.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Constitutional scholars (even Scalia) concur that amendments are not absolute rights. No changes are necessary for universal registration.

“Constitutional scholars”, judges, and even Supreme Court justices, do not have the legitimate authority to overrule the Constitution, although they have often illegally usurped that power.

The Second Amendment identifies a right, identifies that this right belongs to the people, and forbids infringement of this right. A judge ruling that it is permissible to infringe this right is an act of corruption and lawlessness, and a violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

In any event, you didn't address the question that I raised. If there is really so much public support for the various violations of the right to keep and bear arms that you cited, then why is there no credible effort to amend the Constitution in order to overturn the Second Amendment? That is the only way that any of those measures could be legally allowed, and if there is that much support for them, then getting such an amendment ratified ought to be easy.

 

[rightwinger]

All I can say to this thread is......

The day you allow Leftists to disarm you is the day you become a complete slave to their madness and tyranny.
Every Leftist Imbecile on this forum totally ignores what happened in Venezuela. Most probably have no clue.
But it's EXACTLY what every one of their arguments leads to. Period.

View attachment 173125

We're being overrun with hard core Communists
Washington State governor warns DMV not to help ICE agents
Washington state gov warns driver licensing bureau not to help ICE

Poor Snowflake

 

[DrLove]

Constitutional scholars (even Scalia) concur that amendments are not absolute rights. No changes are necessary for universal registration.

“Constitutional scholars”, judges, and even Supreme Court justices, do not have the legitimate authority to overrule the Constitution, although they have often illegally usurped that power.

The Second Amendment identifies a right, identifies that this right belongs to the people, and forbids infringement of this right. A judge ruling that it is permissible to infringe this right is an act of corruption and lawlessness, and a violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

In any event, you didn't address the question that I raised. If there is really so much public support for the various violations of the right to keep and bear arms that you cited, then why is there no credible effort to amend the Constitution in order to overturn the Second Amendment? That is the only way that any of those measures could be legally allowed, and if there is that much support for them, then getting such an amendment ratified ought to be easy.

Nobody is interested in overturning the second amendment Bob. And nobody is interested in "grabbing yer gun". Please step away from NRA knee-jerk talking points long enough to have a rational discussion.

What Wayne and the boys would like to do is to eliminate any and ALL background checks. But if THEY aren't unconstitutional, then why would it be unconstitutional to eliminate the sales of firearms by unlicensed dealers without a background check.

Some of you people have lost your ever-loving minds.

 

[MikeK]

Do you like it when people are slaughtered?

I do. Certain people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nobody is interested in overturning the second amendment Bob. And nobody is interested in "grabbing yer gun". Please step away from NRA knee-jerk talking points long enough to have a rational discussion.

What Wayne and the boys would like to do is to eliminate any and ALL background checks. But if THEY aren't unconstitutional, then why would it be unconstitutional to eliminate the sales of firearms by unlicensed dealers without a background check.

Some of you people have lost your ever-loving minds.

Under the Second Amendment, it is all unconstitutional, as infringements of a right which the Second Amendment explicitly forbids from being infringed.

It is illegal for government to require backgrounds checks for the purchase of arms.

It is illegal for government to require one to have any kind of license or permit to sell arms.

It is illegal for government to require anyone to have any kind of license or permit to acquire, possess, or carry arms.

It is illegal for government to interfere in any way with the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The only way that any of this would be legal, is for the Second Amendment to be overturned by a new Constitutional amendment.

Ift those on your side had any vestige of honor, you would admit this, that everything you want in this category is illegal, and that if you want any of it to be legitimately and legally enacted, you first need to get a Constitutional amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment.

You will not admit this, of course, because you know damn well, in spite of the lies that you insist on repeating, that there is not nearly enough public support for any of these illegal violations of the right to keep and bear arms, to give any attempt a such an amendment any plausible chance of succeeding; and that the level of public support that it would take to accomplish this is less than what you deceitfully claim that your side has.

 

[DrLove]

Under the Second Amendment, it is all unconstitutional, as infringements of a right which the Second Amendment explicitly forbids from being infringed.

It is illegal for government to require backgrounds checks for the purchase of arms.

It is illegal for government to require one to have any kind of license or permit to sell arms.

It is illegal for government to require anyone to have any kind of license or permit to acquire, possess, or carry arms.

It is illegal for government to interfere in any way with the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The only way that any of this would be legal, is for the Second Amendment to be overturned by a new Constitutional amendment.

Ift those on your side had any vestige of honor, you would admit this, that everything you want in this category is illegal, and that if you want any of it to be legitimately and legally enacted, you first need to get a Constitutional amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment.

You will not admit this, of course, because you know damn well, in spite of the lies that you insist on repeating, that there is not nearly enough public support for any of these illegal violations of the right to keep and bear arms, to give any attempt a such an amendment any plausible chance of succeeding; and that the level of public support that it would take to accomplish this is less than what you deceitfully claim that your side has.

Sorry - no changes are needed to the second amendment. We have our gun rights and nothing will change that. But what you appear to be doing is giving kooks and criminals free reign to pick up whatever implements of chaos and destruction they choose. Bullshit on that.

This is the 21st century Bob - not the days of single round flintlocks. Neither is it the wild wild west where everyone is armed and drinking whiskey shots until someone loses it and challenges someone else to a 10 pace standoff as the local sheriff hangs the latest horse thieving suspects.

Nothing you can do to turn back the hands of time. Just enjoy your guns, know that no one is coming for them and be safe.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Constitutional scholars (even Scalia) concur that amendments are not absolute rights. No changes are necessary for universal registration.

“Constitutional scholars”, judges, and even Supreme Court justices, do not have the legitimate authority to overrule the Constitution, although they have often illegally usurped that power.

The Second Amendment identifies a right, identifies that this right belongs to the people, and forbids infringement of this right. A judge ruling that it is permissible to infringe this right is an act of corruption and lawlessness, and a violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

In any event, you didn't address the question that I raised. If there is really so much public support for the various violations of the right to keep and bear arms that you cited, then why is there no credible effort to amend the Constitution in order to overturn the Second Amendment? That is the only way that any of those measures could be legally allowed, and if there is that much support for them, then getting such an amendment ratified ought to be easy.

Nobody is interested in overturning the second amendment Bob. And nobody is interested in "grabbing yer gun". Please step away from NRA knee-jerk talking points long enough to have a rational discussion.

What Wayne and the boys would like to do is to eliminate any and ALL background checks. But if THEY aren't unconstitutional, then why would it be unconstitutional to eliminate the sales of firearms by unlicensed dealers without a background check.

Some of you people have lost your ever-loving minds.

Are you lying, or are you really this dense?