Massachuettes orders residents to surrender bump stocks

[WorldWatcher]

Government has no Constitutional authority to tell us that we cannot own one.

Try owning a kilo of cocaine and when the confiscate it for trial, that they need to pay you for it.

Best of luck.


>>>>

 

[Wyatt earp]

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

So you didn't think giving women the right to vote or slavery would be abolished orhomos getting married was not thought about when the constitution was written?


Of course it was, that's why it was written the way it was.

 

[Pogo]

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions...
The founders weren’t stupid. They knew that times and technologies change. And knowing this full, and well they specifically, and methodically crafted, and wrote the second amendment. You’re attempt to second guess the intellect of the founders of this nation, are laughable.

Ummm..... not so methodically and way definitely not so specifically at all. See this thread.

I made no "attempt to second guess" anybody --- I noted what the contemporary technology of the time was, and what it was not. Your false comparisons fall flat--- whether ideas are transmitted by a street pamphlet or a web site, they're still the same ideas. The nature of them is not changed by the medium. Doesn't work.

 

[Vastator]

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions...
The founders weren’t stupid. They knew that times and technologies change. And knowing this full, and well they specifically, and methodically crafted, and wrote the second amendment. You’re attempt to second guess the intellect of the founders of this nation, are laughable.

Ummm..... not so methodically and way definitely not so specifically at all. See this thread.

I made no "attempt to second guess" anybody --- I noted what the contemporary technology of the time was, and what it was not. Your false comparisons fall flat--- whether ideas are transmitted by a street pamphlet or a web site, they're still the same ideas. The nature of them is not changed by the medium. Doesn't work.

Response fail... try again. Try harder...

 

[Wyatt earp]

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions...
The founders weren’t stupid. They knew that times and technologies change. And knowing this full, and well they specifically, and methodically crafted, and wrote the second amendment. You’re attempt to second guess the intellect of the founders of this nation, are laughable.

Ummm..... not so methodically and way definitely not so specifically at all. See this thread.

I made no "attempt to second guess" anybody --- I noted what the contemporary technology of the time was, and what it was not. Your false comparisons fall flat--- whether ideas are transmitted by a street pamphlet or a web site, they're still the same ideas. The nature of them is not changed by the medium. Doesn't work.

Modern guns are the same ideas, so will hand laser guns and lightsaber's of the future

 

[Pogo]

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

So you didn't think giving women the right to vote or slavery would be abolished orhomos getting married was not thought about when the constitution was written?


Of course it was, that's why it was written the way it was.

Are you sniffing glue? How the fuck does that follow?

The Constitution prohibited no women from voting nor did it endorse slavery. Those were later adjustments to social pressures. The extent to which either was "thought about" during its writing has not the slightest iota of anything to do with my point in any way shape or form whatsoever.

 

[Pogo]

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions...
The founders weren’t stupid. They knew that times and technologies change. And knowing this full, and well they specifically, and methodically crafted, and wrote the second amendment. You’re attempt to second guess the intellect of the founders of this nation, are laughable.

Ummm..... not so methodically and way definitely not so specifically at all. See this thread.

I made no "attempt to second guess" anybody --- I noted what the contemporary technology of the time was, and what it was not. Your false comparisons fall flat--- whether ideas are transmitted by a street pamphlet or a web site, they're still the same ideas. The nature of them is not changed by the medium. Doesn't work.

Response fail... try again. Try harder...

Yep it sure did. Just say "I concede".

 

[miketx]

They should go house to house and get them ..

Try that and they'll get SOMETHING from gun owners; that's for sure.

You know... I’d like to believe that; but I don’t. Recent history bears this out. Remember the warrantless house to house searches for the Boston Marathon bombers? I do...

Mass. is a commie state....

 

[WorldWatcher]

You might have an argument ifit applied only to items which were acquired illegally in the first place. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about property that was legally-acquired, and legal to possess and use at the time that it was acquired, with a corrupt government deciding after the fact to make it illegal to continue to possess or use. To deprive owners of that property, without just compensation, blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against such.

Sorry, that is not required for illegally held items.

If I buy a RADAR Detector in a State where it is legal and use it in a State where it is illegal, I'm still in violation of the law and it will be confiscated and I'll be charged even though I acquired it legally.

See, also, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits “ex post facto Law”. It's unconstitutional to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time it was taken, but which was made illegal afterward.

No one will punished for owning a bump stock in the past (which is an ex post facto law means). They will only be punished if they are found to be in possession of a bump stock AFTER the date the law becomes effective. That is not an ex post facto law.


>>>>

 

[Anathema]

You know... I’d like to believe that; but I don’t. Recent history bears this out. Remember the warrantless house to house searches for the Boston Marathon bombers? I do...

1. Totally different types of situation.

2. There are few (legal) gun owners in that area, as the Boston PD issues far fewer FID Cards and LTCs than most other places in the state.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

So you didn't think giving women the right to vote or slavery would be abolished orhomos getting married was not thought about when the constitution was written?


Of course it was, that's why it was written the way it was.

Are you sniffing glue? How the fuck does that follow?

The Constitution prohibited no women from voting nor did it endorse slavery. Those were later adjustments to social pressures. The extent to which either was "thought about" during its writing has not the slightest iota of anything to do with my point in any way shape or form whatsoever.

It happened because of the way the constitution, Bill of rights was written, make no mistake about it.

 

[Vastator]

You know... I’d like to believe that; but I don’t. Recent history bears this out. Remember the warrantless house to house searches for the Boston Marathon bombers? I do...

1. Totally different types of situation.

Same citizens. Same Constitution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You might have an argument ifit applied only to items which were acquired illegally in the first place. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about property that was legally-acquired, and legal to possess and use at the time that it was acquired, with a corrupt government deciding after the fact to make it illegal to continue to possess or use. To deprive owners of that property, without just compensation, blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against such.

Sorry, that is not required for illegally held items.

If I buy a RADAR Detector in a State where it is legal and use it in a State where it is illegal, I'm still in violation of the law and it will be confiscated and I'll be charged even though I acquired it legally.

See, also, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits “ex post facto Law”. It's unconstitutional to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time it was taken, but which was made illegal afterward.

No one will punished for owning a bump stock in the past (which is an ex post facto law means). They will only be punished if they are found to be in possession of a bump stock AFTER the date the law becomes effective. That is not an ex post facto law.


>>>>

Radar dectors are not protected by the constitution the right to bear arms is.

 

[Anathema]

Same citizens. Same Constitution.

There is a massive difference between searching for terrorists and attempting to confiscate legally owned firearms.

I will say that those officers would have been openly invited me into my home to look for those two terrorists. On the other hand, any officer coming for my firearms will be net with force.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You might have an argument ifit applied only to items which were acquired illegally in the first place. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about property that was legally-acquired, and legal to possess and use at the time that it was acquired, with a corrupt government deciding after the fact to make it illegal to continue to possess or use. To deprive owners of that property, without just compensation, blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against such.

Sorry, that is not required for illegally held items.

If I buy a RADAR Detector in a State where it is legal and use it in a State where it is illegal, I'm still in violation of the law and it will be confiscated and I'll be charged even though I acquired it legally.

CIting one instance of a state blatantly violating the Constitution is not a useful argument in defense of another unrelated instance of a state blatantly violating the Constitution.

All that you demonstrate by trying to make that argument is the degree of abject contempt that you have for the Constitution and for the rule of law thereunder.

See, also, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits “ex post facto Law”. It's unconstitutional to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time it was taken, but which was made illegal afterward.

No one will punished for owning a bump stock in the past (which is an ex post facto law means). They will only be punished if they are found to be in possession of a bump stock AFTER the date the law becomes effective. That is not an ex post facto law.

To punish someone for owning property that was legal at the time he acquired it is exactly an instance of ex post facto law. If the state wants to deprive someone of such property, then the state is required, under the Fifth Amendment, to justly compensate the owner of that property for the loss thereof.

 

[miketx]

rotflmfao! GD regressives are stupid! No stock needed liars!

 

[Vastator]

Same citizens. Same Constitution.

There is a massive difference between searching for terrorists and attempting to confiscate legally owned firearms.

I will say that those officers would have been openly invited me into my home to look for those two terrorists. On the other hand, any officer coming for my firearms will be net with force.

The “authorities” were the ones making that distinction, and call. Not the citizens. That’s a problem... Did you entertain the notion that the Sarnyev brothers might actually be in your house?

 

[Anathema]

The “authorities” were the ones making that distinction, and call. Not the citizens. That’s a problem... Did you entertain the notion that the Sarnyev brothers might actually be in your house?

I do not remember seeing a single story about ANYONE resisting the evacuation or searches.

I don' live in that area of Massachusetts. I would have known they weren't in the house. I would still have enthusiastically let the police into the house.

 

[Vastator]

The “authorities” were the ones making that distinction, and call. Not the citizens. That’s a problem... Did you entertain the notion that the Sarnyev brothers might actually be in your house?

I do not remember seeing a single story about ANYONE resisting the evacuation or searches.

I don' live in that area of Massachusetts. I would have known they weren't in the house. I would still have enthusiastically let the police into the house.

Those who are willing to trade freedom for safety, and security deserve neither; and will lose both.

And just out of curiosity... What do you think would have happened to the citizen who stood his ground, and actively denied the police entry without a warrant?

I hate to break it to many of the folks reading this; but... When they come for your guns, they aren’t going to send out a memo, or warn you in advance. No ones going to knock on your door, and say “I’m here to take away your guns.”

 

[Pogo]

You might have an argument ifit applied only to items which were acquired illegally in the first place. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about property that was legally-acquired, and legal to possess and use at the time that it was acquired, with a corrupt government deciding after the fact to make it illegal to continue to possess or use. To deprive owners of that property, without just compensation, blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against such.

Sorry, that is not required for illegally held items.

If I buy a RADAR Detector in a State where it is legal and use it in a State where it is illegal, I'm still in violation of the law and it will be confiscated and I'll be charged even though I acquired it legally.

See, also, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits “ex post facto Law”. It's unconstitutional to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time it was taken, but which was made illegal afterward.

No one will punished for owning a bump stock in the past (which is an ex post facto law means). They will only be punished if they are found to be in possession of a bump stock AFTER the date the law becomes effective. That is not an ex post facto law.


>>>>

Radar dectors are not protected by the constitution the right to bear arms is.

Actually radar detectors are protected by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The Virginia state law --- the only one left, if it even still exists --- is countermanded by Federal law.