"Assault" Weapons

[justinacolmena]

sorry,, I should have said LEGAL authority,,,

They don't need legal authority to put you in prison for owning a gun. They just call it mental health if it isn't a crime.

 

[Canon Shooter]

no I didnt,, I said the first 4 words covered what kind of weapons it was talking about,,

it would help if you were honest,,

Honest?

All you're doing is proving that you're nothing more than a lying bag of shit.

When I said the phrase "weapons of war" was not in the 2nd Amendment, you said it was. I explained to you that I'd just read it three times, and it wasn't there. You then said it was in the first four words.

It's not there.

You're just another liberal pussy who's afraid to simply admit that he's wrong. If you think no one else sees that, you're far more fucking stupid than I gave you credit for...

 

[progressive hunter]

Honest?

All you're doing is proving that you're nothing more than a lying bag of shit.

When I said the phrase "weapons of war" was not in the 2nd Amendment, you said it was. I explained to you that I'd just read it three times, and it wasn't there. You then said it was in the first four words.

It's not there.

You're just another liberal pussy who's afraid to simply admit that he's wrong. If you think no one else sees that, you're far more fucking stupid than I gave you credit for...

I'm not wrong,, a militia is a civilian military and as such uses weapons of war,,, so its covered,,

youre just mad cause I proved you gun grabbers wrong,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

I'm not wrong,, a militia is a civilian military and as such uses weapons of war,,, so its covered,,

youre just mad cause I proved you gun grabbers wrong,,

Dude, pull your fucking head out of your ass.

The words "weapons of war" do not appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, regardless of how often you say they do.

You're an idiot. You've made that much clear...

 

[progressive hunter]

Dude, pull your fucking head out of your ass.

The words "weapons of war" do not appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, regardless of how often you say they do.

You're an idiot. You've made that much clear...

never said they did,, I said its covered in the first 4 words of the 2nd A and it is,,

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not wrong,, a militia is a civilian military and as such uses weapons of war,,, so its covered,,

youre just mad cause I proved you gun grabbers wrong,,

But again, the amendment saying that because a civilian military is necessary for a free state, does NOT at all imply that is the sole reason for why federal firearm laws are to be banned. Listing one reason does not imply there are none others. It does not matter why the founders wanted no federal infringement on firearms. It will always be a good idea. The only reason why one would ever want gun restrictions to be federal is if you wanted to illegally usurp state authority. That would be like letting the feds set speed limits and parking restrictions. Totally illegal.

 

[progressive hunter]

But again, the amendment saying that because a civilian military is necessary for a free state, does NOT at all imply that is the sole reason for why federal firearm laws are to be banned. Listing one reason does not imply there are none others. It does not matter why the founders wanted no federal infringement on firearms. It will always be a good idea. The only reason why one would ever want gun restrictions to be federal is if you wanted to illegally usurp state authority. That would be like letting the feds set speed limits and parking restrictions. Totally illegal.

never said anything about that,,

how about you just give us the clause in the constitution that gives states the authority to rewrite amendments instead of giving your opinion??

 

[Rigby5]

never said they did,, I said its covered in the first 4 words of the 2nd A and it is,,

{... A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ...}

A militia could be necessary for many things, from home defense, a municipal posse, state guards for riots or disasters, or national defense.
But if any of those require weapons of war, and they do, then the implication is the general population should have and become familiar with their own weapons of war.

 

[progressive hunter]

{... A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ...}

A militia could be necessary for many things, from home defense, a municipal posse, state guards for riots or disasters, or national defense.
But if any of those require weapons of war, and they do, then the implication is the general population should have and become familiar with their own weapons of war.

a dildo can be used for many things also,,

but the 2nd A is specific for the security of a free state,,,

so are you going to keep giving your opinion or are you going to back it up with proof??

 

[Rigby5]

never said anything about that,,

how about you just give us the clause in the constitution that gives states the authority to rewrite amendments instead of giving your opinion??

Already did.
{...

Ninth Amendment​

Main article: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[95]

...

Tenth Amendment​

Main article: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[95]

...}

The 9th amendment is saying nothing in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, alters the existing rights or powers of states, municipalities, or individuals.
The restrictions on states in the Constitution, like prohibiting states from making treaties with foreign government, changes nothing because states were never allowed to do that.

The 10th amendment is even more clear that the federal government can only make laws where it is specifically delegated the authority to do that. And since there is no explicit authority given for federal firearm laws, than all federal firearm laws are entirely illegal.

 

[progressive hunter]

Already did.
{...

Ninth Amendment​

Main article: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

...

Tenth Amendment​

Main article: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

...}

The 9th amendment is saying nothing in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, alters the existing rights or powers of states, municipalities, or individuals.
The restrictions on states in the Constitution, like prohibiting states from making treaties with foreign government, changes nothing because states were never allowed to do that.

The 10th amendment is even more clear that the federal government can only make laws where it is specifically delegated the authority to do that. And since there is no explicit authority given for federal firearm laws, than all federal firearm laws are entirely illegal.

no thats not what the 9th and 10th say,,,

I'm thinking youre just stupid

 

[Rigby5]

a dildo can be used for many things also,,

but the 2nd A is specific for the security of a free state,,,

so are you going to keep giving your opinion or are you going to back it up with proof??

That is not opinion
Stating one reason why the feds are to be denied jurisdiction, does not imply the feds can grab jurisdiction if that one reason were to change.

I disagree dildos have more than one use.
I can't think of any.

But clearly firearms do have multiple uses.
Besides national defense by professionals, they are used by volunteers for national defense, state defense, municipal defense, home defense, anti crime, hunting, etc.
Clearly federal firearm laws are totally illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

no thats not what the 9th and 10th say,,,

I'm thinking youre just stupid

And you think it is useful to not list your alternative view or any specific point of contention?
Are you saying you totally and completely disagree?
Are you trying to imply states can only do what the Constitution specifically authorizes them to do but the federal government can do whatever it wants?
If so, that is the definition of an authoritarian dictatorship and should be immediately destroyed.
And since that is what federal gun and drug laws are doing, then this government is hopeless and we need to start over.

 

[progressive hunter]

That is not opinion
Stating one reason why the feds are to be denied jurisdiction, does not imply the feds can grab jurisdiction if that one reason were to change.

I disagree dildos have more than one use.
I can't think of any.

But clearly firearms do have multiple uses.
Besides national defense by professionals, they are used by volunteers for national defense, state defense, municipal defense, home defense, anti crime, hunting, etc.
Clearly federal firearm laws are totally illegal.

I'm not denying the restriction on the feds,, you claim the states can alter or ignore the constitution and have yet to show where thats stated,, you just keep giving your opinion or things that have nothing to do with the 2nd,,

the 10th is specific when it says THE PEOPLE as is the 2nd A when it says THE PEOPLE,, its also specific when it says SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,,

So how about you give us the clause where it says the states can ignore or alter the constitution and stop giving your opinion??

 

[progressive hunter]

And you think it is useful to not list your alternative view or any specific point of contention?
Are you saying you totally and completely disagree?
Are you trying to imply states can only do what the Constitution specifically authorizes them to do but the federal government can do whatever it wants?
If so, that is the definition of an authoritarian dictatorship and should be immediately destroyed.
And since that is what federal gun and drug laws are doing, then this government is hopeless and we need to start over.

I want proof not your opinion,,
youre confusing government with the constitution so instead of starting over why not stand up to tyranny???

 

[Flash]

Dude, pull your fucking head out of your ass.

The words "weapons of war" do not appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, regardless of how often you say they do.

You're an idiot. You've made that much clear...

Go read the Miller case.

In upholding the NFA the Court's ruling they stated that the protection of the Second applied to weapons in general use by the military.

An often overlooked part of settled law.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not denying the restriction on the feds,, you claim the states can alter or ignore the constitution and have yet to show where thats stated,, you just keep giving your opinion or things that have nothing to do with the 2nd,,

the 10th is specific when it says THE PEOPLE as is the 2nd A when it says THE PEOPLE,, its also specific when it says SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,,

So how about you give us the clause where it says the states can ignore or alter the constitution and stop giving your opinion??

If what you are saying is that for example, the 4th amendment is also a restriction in the states from violating individual rights, then I agree.

{... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[95] ...}

But the feds did not play the role of the protector of individual rights much until after the 14th amendment.
How else could slavery have still happened?

 

[progressive hunter]

If what you are saying is that for example, the 4th amendment is also a restriction in the states from violating individual rights, then I agree.

{... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[95] ...}

But the feds did not play the role of the protector of individual rights much until after the 14th amendment.
How else could slavery have still happened?

youre dodging again,,,

just give me the clause that says states can change, alter or ignore the 2nd A as youve claimed several times

 

[Rigby5]

Go read the Miller case.

In upholding the NFA the Court's ruling they stated that the protection of the Second applied to weapons in general use by the military.

An often overlooked part of settled law.

Correct.
And the mistake the judges made in the MIller case is that sawed off shotguns ARE commonly used by the military, know as coachguns, and predated by the blunderbuss. Both commonly used by ship boarding parties.

 

[Rigby5]

youre dodging again,,,

just give me the clause that says states can change, alter or ignore the 2nd A as youve claimed several times

Oh, is that what you mean.
Well here is the 2nd.
{... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ...}
What Scalia would say is that "the people" means collectively not individually, and that reasonable restrictions are not infringements.
I tend to disagree with Scalia, in that arms are an individual right, and that all restrictions do infringe.
But yet do we not all agree that states can pass laws restricting juvenile firearm access?