Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,836
- 290
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The 2nd Amendment Wins Again
- Thread starter OKTexas
- Start date
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,894
- 1,940
- Banned
- #122
...firearm ownership is an absolute right in the only permit needed is the constitution… FactAre you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.How does a background check stop a criminal from getting a gun...? Most criminals get their guns from a family member or girlfriend who can pass a background check......making background checks for criminals useless....
Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,266
- 2,290
Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.How does a background check stop a criminal from getting a gun...? Most criminals get their guns from a family member or girlfriend who can pass a background check......making background checks for criminals useless....
Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
Voter ID is Constitutional....it is free and does not stop voting...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,266
- 2,290
Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.How does a background check stop a criminal from getting a gun...? Most criminals get their guns from a family member or girlfriend who can pass a background check......making background checks for criminals useless....
Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
It can happen with this new ruling...every single gun has at some point been a military weapon...so according to the 4th it is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,836
- 290
Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
Voter ID is Constitutional....it is free and does not stop voting...
Gun control is constitutional.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,266
- 2,290
This is how stupid the 4th is...on stun guns...They ignored this legal Precedent.....from the Supreme Court that is in addition to the Heller decision...
Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed her conviction under the theory that her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”[5] Caetano then appealed the Massachusetts court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.[6]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]
First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]
Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
Justice Alito's concurring opinion[edit]
Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.[3] Justice Alito characterized the per curiam decision as "grudging" and wrote that "[t]he reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense".[13] He provided an analysis of why he believed that the Massachusetts court's ruling contradicted Heller and other cases interpreting the Second Amendment.[14] After concluding that the Massachusetts stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment, Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".[15]
Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed her conviction under the theory that her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”[5] Caetano then appealed the Massachusetts court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.[6]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]
First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]
Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
Justice Alito's concurring opinion[edit]
Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.[3] Justice Alito characterized the per curiam decision as "grudging" and wrote that "[t]he reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense".[13] He provided an analysis of why he believed that the Massachusetts court's ruling contradicted Heller and other cases interpreting the Second Amendment.[14] After concluding that the Massachusetts stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment, Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".[15]
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,266
- 2,290
Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
Voter ID is Constitutional....it is free and does not stop voting...
Gun control is constitutional.
Yes....felons can't have guns...dangerous mentally ill individual can't have guns...you can't use guns to commit crimes....that is Constitutional.....
- Thread starter
- #129
show me one person here who thinks that convicted felons should be able to buy guns legallyCan you provide evidence of said vending machine?
Well you preach that there should be no gun control . So then you would be in favor of guns out of vending machines ! Anything less would mean some sort of gun control was in place .
Are you kidding ? What the fuck do you think background checks are for? Most of you gun nuts are against them .
How does a background check stop a criminal from getting a gun...? Most criminals get their guns from a family member or girlfriend who can pass a background check......making background checks for criminals useless....
Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Yeah, because cars are never ever stolen, never to be seen again.
- Thread starter
- #130
I'll ask you. Do you think we should have control?
Absolutely.
You have no business picking up a gun if you can't control it.
Learn the features before loading it, especially the safety features. Sight it in, understand the range and recoil of the weapon.
A shooter must have control of the weapon.
Thanks for answering .Then the dispute is what controls .
I am not against gun ownership . I took the safety class , next step is to apply for my license .
Why should you need a license to exercise a constitutional right, should we issue licenses to speak or vote?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,266
- 2,290
I'll ask you. Do you think we should have control?
Absolutely.
You have no business picking up a gun if you can't control it.
Learn the features before loading it, especially the safety features. Sight it in, understand the range and recoil of the weapon.
A shooter must have control of the weapon.
Thanks for answering .Then the dispute is what controls .
I am not against gun ownership . I took the safety class , next step is to apply for my license .
Why should you need a license to exercise a constitutional right, should we issue licenses to speak or vote?
When the democrats required a literacy test for blacks to vote, they were stopped and told it was UnConstitutional......requiring a test to own a gun is nothing more than a literacy test to prohibit the exercise of a Right....
- Thread starter
- #132
Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.show me one person here who thinks that convicted felons should be able to buy guns legally
Are you kidding ? What the fuck do you think background checks are for? Most of you gun nuts are against them .
How does a background check stop a criminal from getting a gun...? Most criminals get their guns from a family member or girlfriend who can pass a background check......making background checks for criminals useless....
Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
You can't require a felon to register their gun, the 14th requires equal protection of all citizens.
- Thread starter
- #133
Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.How does a background check stop a criminal from getting a gun...? Most criminals get their guns from a family member or girlfriend who can pass a background check......making background checks for criminals useless....
Bingo !
That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?
Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...
Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .
And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?
NO!
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.
Why are they whining about it? Because it doesn't fit their agenda.
They had no problem with the Supreme Court forcing same sex marriages on states against the will of the people. They had no problems forcing people to buy health insurance whether they could afford it or not. But the courts saying people don't have to have a license to carry a firearm, now that's a violation of State's rights.
- Thread starter
- #136
Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.
It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?
infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #137
should we give Chicago, "the memo"?We've had unlicensed conceal/carry in Arizona for a couple years now.....Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by. A mechanic buddy of mine told me he's surprised when he doesn't see a pistol in the glove box or under the seat when the vehicle is in his shop. So far so good...only ones getting shot are those who have it coming.
- Thread starter
- #138
should we give Chicago, "the memo"?We've had unlicensed conceal/carry in Arizona for a couple years now.....Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by. A mechanic buddy of mine told me he's surprised when he doesn't see a pistol in the glove box or under the seat when the vehicle is in his shop. So far so good...only ones getting shot are those who have it coming.
I think someone should teach them to read first.
- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,391
- 18,701
- 1,915
You, of course, have a link showing that has happened.Unlike you that is just plain ugly.New Hampshire is like the ugly step-child of New England.
Freedom and the Constitution rule. LLL's quake in the wake of Great American's protecting themselves.
How about the freedom to not be gunned down by some crazy criminal who got a gun out of a vending machine ?
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,757
- 2,220
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 285
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 751
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 459
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 301
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 428
- Replies
- 350
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 195
- Views
- 805
- Replies
- 94
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 68
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8136
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-