Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #1,061
Bwahahahahaha! There is no crying in politics, Duh-ryl. Your side spends billions to corrupt politicians and we are still winning.They already do. But your bunch spends millions on each corrupt politico to buy them off to prevent allowing the People to be represented.
You can’t get the votes you need to amend the U.S. Constitution so you want to violate it. Like a typical fascist, you can’t accept the fact that We the People have spoken.
Now...run along and play with your toys. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.
You certainly enjoy hearing yourself talk loudly. Most of the states have common sense gun regulation laws in place and there are more on the way. You can cling to the 2nd amendment for dear life all you wish but it's the States that make the laws in this case, not the Feds. If the State Congress Critters don't, they find themselves out of a job fast these days. It's called "Common Sense". Even Florida has joined that role. You said that there were 38 states that agreed with you but the count is where only 15 do and that number is falling fast. As long as the Supreme Court agrees with the States then the 2nd Amendment (the 2nd half of it) isn't worth the paper it's printed on and needs to be amended to keep up. Much like the other 9 amendments have also had done to them. before you start going off, from the 1tth amendment on, those are modifications or amendments to the first 10. The Constitution was written this way. As for the first half of the 2nd amendment, it became irrelevent in 1917 when the National Guard was formed.
It appears that it's YOU that needs to get the Constitution amended to suit your own needs. And the State Constitutions as well. And you need to completely replace the Supreme Court with those that think like you do as well. Just how much do you thing that will happen? Fire up the shotguns, you going flying Pig Hunting.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on these so called new laws...all of them are unConstitutional.....
D.C v Heller
Miller v United States
the dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Caetano v Massachusetts
McDonald v The City of Chicago
Murdock v Pennsylvania
You don't know what you are talking about...
In 2014, the NRA went after the new Colorado Laws. The Supreme Court ruled 100% in favor of the state laws. There was a long list of things that you claim are unconstitutional on that list.
D.C v Heller was about hand guns. The Court ruled that the District did not have the right to limit the use of handguns in the Homes. But the District was well within it's rights to barr them from being carried outside of the home. This was a Win/'Loss category
the dissent in Friedman v Highland Park. The ruling was for the banning of the AR type weapons. It did open the door to allowing more traditional civilian guns into the Homes like handguns and hunting rifles. But it sided with Highland Park about the AR style rifle.
Miller v United States. Overturned. The Court ruled that a person does not have the right to transport a saw off shotgun over state lines for any reason. It was also against the NFA law of 1934 to even possess one in the first place.
Caetano v Massachusetts. The original ruling was that a Stun Gun was not protected by the 2nd amendment. Caetano was found guilty. But after a lengthy court battle all the way to the supreme court, that was overturned and a Mass Judge overturned her conviction due to what would have been a ruling in Caetoano's favor by the Supreme Court had it come to that. That Judges ruling has been used by Mass as the basis for other cases.
McDonald v The City of Chicago. They tried to use the 2nd Amendment ruling for the District of Columbia which has NO 14th Amendment protecting it as precedence in State Rulings. The District of Columbia has no choice to use the 2nd Amendment as it is written. But a State, under the 14th Amendment can amend it with their state constitutions within the law within reason. Chicago had the right as does Illinois.
Murdock v Pennsylvania. This is about Jehovah Witnesses selling Religious Information. Simple as that. It was about, Can we Tax the sale of Religious Text even when it's being openly sold to defray costs? No we cannot. This has nothing to do with firearms. It's just a strawman.
You want to follow the Constution but you want to only follow that part that agrees with you. You want to leave out the parts that disagree with you. Try reading the whole thing like the Supreme Court is duty bound to do.