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.
>>>>
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.
Government has no Constitutional authority to tell us that we cannot own one.
.Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weaponThe point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stockSecond amendment says nothing about bump stocks
1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?
Yea you do is 2 amendment
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....Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weaponThe point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?
Yea you do is 2 amendment
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.
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.
Response fail... try again. Try harder...Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions....Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weaponThe point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock
Yea you do is 2 amendment
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.
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.
Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions....Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weaponThe point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock
Yea you do is 2 amendment
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.
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.
.Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weaponThe point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?
Yea you do is 2 amendment
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.
Response fail... try again. Try harder...Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions....Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weaponYea you do is 2 amendment
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.
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.
Mass. is a commie state....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...They should go house to house and get them ..
Try that and they'll get SOMETHING from gun owners; that's for sure.
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.
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.
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...
.Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weaponThe point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock
Yea you do is 2 amendment
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.
Same citizens. Same Constitution.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.
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.
>>>>
Same citizens. Same Constitution.
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.
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?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?
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.
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.