"Assault" Weapons

[Rigby5]

so you have no proof and are just gonna make shit up,,

got it,,,

What are you talking about?
Quoting a well proven logical fallacy is absolute proof.
Nothing could prove it any better.
Is there something more you want, in terms of explanation of application?

 

[Canon Shooter]

its in the first four words,,,

Nope.

How's that fail tasting?

 

[progressive hunter]

The easiest example is religion.
(It is really a little too easy so is cheating a bit, but I will do it anyway because it is so easy.)

{... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ...}

Freedom of religion was only a restriction on the federal government. Several states at that time, like Quaker Pennsylvania and the Puritan Connecticut definitely did have state religions.
There has never been any legal restriction on state or local infringement on religion until the 14th amendment.

What I am saying is that if states and municipalities CAN make laws to handle a situation, then the implication of the founders was that the feds should not have any jurisdiction then. Federal jurisdiction was only for what states and municipalities could not do themselves, like immigration, national defense, facilitate interstate commerce, post office, etc.

Which is why the federal war on drugs is totally and completely illegal.

again no proof just your opinion,,

nice try but I will stick with reality and not your opinion,,

 

[progressive hunter]

What are you talking about?
Quoting a well proven logical fallacy is absolute proof.
Nothing could prove it any better.
Is there something more you want, in terms of explanation of application?

proof is something written in the constitution that backs up your claim,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope.

How's that fail tasting?

then you explain what a well regulated militia is??

a militia is a civilian military and well regulated in this context means sufficiently armed,,

not sure how you can secure a free state without military grade weapons,, ie ,, weapons of war,,

 

[Rigby5]

again no proof just your opinion,,

nice try but I will stick with reality and not your opinion,,

Its not "my opinion".
Its what the 9th and 10th amendment say.
The federal government was to be very restricted to only what was specifically allocated to federal jurisdiction, and nothing else.
While everything not specifically allocated to federal jurisdiction was to be assumed as state, municipal, or individual.

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

 

[progressive hunter]

Its not "my opinion".
Its what the 9th and 10th amendment say.
The federal government was to be very restricted to only what was specifically allocated to federal jurisdiction, and nothing else.
While everything not specifically allocated to federal jurisdiction was to be assumed as state, municipal, or individual.

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

NO thats not what they say,,

and if you look at the 10th its specific, as is the 2nd A,,,"THE PEOPLE" not the states or the feds,,,

and anything else already covered is covered,, unless youre saying a state can do away with due process and execute without a trial,,,

 

[Rigby5]

proof is something written in the constitution that backs up your claim,,

No, the constitution is not going to explain predicate logic rules.
Those are an aspect of language, math, logic, and other areas beyond what the constitution is going to say, and assumes we already know how to use.
Again, if the federal government is to be banned from firearm jurisdiction due to the need for an armed citizenry to be able to call up for defense, the lack of need need for an armed citizenry for defense would then not at all imply that then the feds do have firearm jurisdiction.
They still do not.
That is for many reasons.
One is that there is and will always be a need for an armed citizenry for defense.
In fact, as we gain a larger, more corrupt, and more highly profit motivated professional military, the need becomes much greater, not lesser, as now we have a corrupt body of domestic mercenaries to contend with, as well as foreign threats.
Another is that there may always have been dozens of reasons why the feds were to be banned from firearm jurisdiction, and the fact they listed one reason, in no way implies there were not others they did not bother to list.
Another is that clearly there is no need, purpose, or use for federal firearm jurisdiction.
States all differ so widely that they should all have different firearm rules, and nothing is gained by federal interference.
All that means is more distant and deaf legislators, more bureaucratic and corrupt enforcement and prosecution, and fewer personal rights.
Nothing is gained.
And it violates the over all principle, which is that the feds should only do what locals can not do themselves.
And clearly nothing at all is gained by federal firearm laws.
When you do a background checks, it is always done locally anyway.
There is no federal database, nor would a federal database even be legal.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, the constitution is not going to explain predicate logic rules.
Those are an aspect of language, math, logic, and other areas beyond what the constitution is going to say, and assumes we already know how to use.
Again, if the federal government is to be banned from firearm jurisdiction due to the need for an armed citizenry to be able to call up for defense, the lack of need need for an armed citizenry for defense would then not at all imply that then the feds do have firearm jurisdiction.
They still do not.
That is for many reasons.
One is that there is and will always be a need for an armed citizenry for defense.
In fact, as we gain a larger, more corrupt, and more highly profit motivated professional military, the need becomes much greater, not lesser, as now we have a corrupt body of domestic mercenaries to contend with, as well as foreign threats.
Another is that there may always have been dozens of reasons why the feds were to be banned from firearm jurisdiction, and the fact they listed one reason, in no way implies there were not others they did not bother to list.
Another is that clearly there is no need, purpose, or use for federal firearm jurisdiction.
States all differ so widely that they should all have different firearm rules, and nothing is gained by federal interference.
All that means is more distant and deaf legislators, more bureaucratic and corrupt enforcement and prosecution, and fewer personal rights.
Nothing is gained.
And it violates the over all principle, which is that the feds should only do what locals can not do themselves.
And clearly nothing at all is gained by federal firearm laws.
When you do a background checks, it is always done locally anyway.
There is no federal database, nor would a federal database even be legal.

so you admit its just your opinion,,,

now we are making progress,,,

and if background checks are sent through the FBI how is that local???

your opinions need a lot of work,,

 

[Rigby5]

then you explain what a well regulated militia is??

a militia is a civilian military and well regulated in this context means sufficiently armed,,

not sure how you can secure a free state without military grade weapons,, ie ,, weapons of war,,

The words "well regulated" means well functioning in a timely and predictable away, like in a well regulated clock or well regulated bowel movements.
And a militia does not imply federal at all.
Since there were no police or telephones, back then everyone had to act as the police for their own protection.
Frankly I think that is how is still is or should be, since the police are too slow, corrupt, trigger happy, biased, badly trained, given military rules of engagement, and obviously criminal in their enforcement of the illegal War on Drugs, no-knock-warrants, etc.
While civilians may not need weapons of war in order to protect their chicken from a fox, you can't expect civilians to have a different firearm for each possible use, so they will and should obtain and own the highest grade possible, for the most stringent use, which is a weapon of war.
There is no other way to maintain a free state.
A professional, paid, mercenary, elite military has never been a safe, reliable, or good way to ensure a free state.
For example, it was a professional, paid, mercenary, elite military that sent Jews to the death camps during WWII.
The biggest threat to any free republic has always been a professional military.

 

[Rigby5]

NO thats not what they say,,

and if you look at the 10th its specific, as is the 2nd A,,,"THE PEOPLE" not the states or the feds,,,

and anything else already covered is covered,, unless youre saying a state can do away with due process and execute without a trial,,,

The right to trial comes from the state constitutions, not the federal constitution or Bill of Rights.
As to "The People" many on the SCOTUS argue there is such as thing as a collective right not accessible to individuals alone.
However, I think I sort of agree with you on this one.
It does sound to me like the intend was individual?

 

[progressive hunter]

The words "well regulated" means well functioning in a timely and predictable away, like in a well regulated clock or well regulated bowel movements.
And a militia does not imply federal at all.
Since there were no police or telephones, back then everyone had to act as the police for their own protection.
Frankly I think that is how is still is or should be, since the police are too slow, corrupt, trigger happy, biased, badly trained, given military rules of engagement, and obviously criminal in their enforcement of the illegal War on Drugs, no-knock-warrants, etc.
While civilians may not need weapons of war in order to protect their chicken from a fox, you can't expect civilians to have a different firearm for each possible use, so they will and should obtain and own the highest grade possible, for the most stringent use, which is a weapon of war.
There is no other way to maintain a free state.
A professional, paid, mercenary, elite military has never been a safe, reliable, or good way to ensure a free state.
For example, it was a professional, paid, mercenary, elite military that sent Jews to the death camps during WWII.
The biggest threat to any free republic has always been a professional military.

not sure why youre switching topics?? but it would be nice if you backed that up with something,,,

in context this is whats meant by well regulated

• Under the Articles of Confederation, from 1777 on, states were required to maintain their own “well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered” with “a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” The states would appoint all officers under the rank of colonel.

 

[progressive hunter]

The right to trial comes from the state constitutions, not the federal constitution or Bill of Rights.
As to "The People" many on the SCOTUS argue there is such as thing as a collective right not accessible to individuals alone.
However, I think I sort of agree with you on this one.
It does sound to me like the intend was individual?

the fed constitution came first dumbass,, the states just copied it,,

a state cant change theirs and do away with due process,,,

just like they cant change the 2nd A,,

 

[Rigby5]

so you admit its just your opinion,,,

now we are making progress,,,

and if background checks are sent through the FBI how is that local???

your opinions need a lot of work,,

All the FBI does is then make calls to locals who can legally have background databases on individuals.
Why do you think it can take days?
If the FBI was actually doing the background check, in its own database, it would only take seconds.

 

[progressive hunter]

All the FBI does is then make calls to locals who can legally have background databases on individuals.
Why do you think it can take days?
If the FBI was actually doing the background check, in its own database, it would only take seconds.

it takes days when they are backed up during high volume times because they are a single entity,,,, most times it does take seconds or minutes,,,,,

 

[Rigby5]

not sure why youre switching topics?? but it would be nice if you backed that up with something,,,

in context this is whats meant by well regulated

• Under the Articles of Confederation, from 1777 on, states were required to maintain their own “well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered” with “a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” The states would appoint all officers under the rank of colonel.

Yes, and the meaning of "well regulated" clearly means they are practiced and in possession of arms capable of being quickly called upon for defense.
What they are saying is that federal gun laws would be counter productive, in that they would reduce our national defense capability.
That is because the founders did not trust professional soldiers, and wanted citizens soldiers instead.
That is also a lot cheaper, and they did not want a lot of tax money wasted on a standing army.
If only we had stayed that way, it would save trillions.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes, and the meaning of "well regulated" clearly means they are practiced and in possession of arms capable of being quickly called upon for defense.
What they are saying is that federal gun laws would be counter productive, in that they would reduce our national defense capability.
That is because the founders did not trust professional soldiers, and wanted citizens soldiers instead.
That is also a lot cheaper, and they did not want a lot of tax money wasted on a standing army.
If only we had stayed that way, it would save trillions.

what they say whoever "THEY" are doesnt mean shit,, its whats written that counts,,

so again its just your opinion,,

 

[Rigby5]

the fed constitution came first dumbass,, the states just copied it,,

a state cant change theirs and do away with due process,,,

just like they cant change the 2nd A,,

Wrong.
States existed first.
They could not decide to join the Union or have dissolved the Articles of Confederation if states did not pre-exist the federal constitution and government.
The fact states adjusted their constitutions to align with the federal government after they joined, does not mean they had to.
As for "due process", in one state that could be trial by jury, but in other states that could be a tribunal of 3 religious judges.

Here is the 6th:
{...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
..;}
But if your point is the 6th does more than divide jurisdictions between feds and all others, then I agree it does, in this case, and a few others.
But in general the majority of the Bill of Rights is restrictions on feds.

 

[Rigby5]

it takes days when they are backed up during high volume times because they are a single entity,,,, most times it does take seconds or minutes,,,,,

No, feds do not have any database and are restricted from doing do.
All background check info comes from state or local.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.
States existed first.
They could not decide to join the Union or have dissolved the Articles of Confederation if states did not pre-exist the federal constitution and government.
The fact states adjusted their constitutions to align with the federal government after they joined, does not mean they had to.
As for "due process", in one state that could be trial by jury, but in other states that could be a tribunal of 3 religious judges.

Here is the 6th:
{...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
..;}
But if your point is the 6th does more than divide jurisdictions between feds and all others, then I agree it does, in this case, and a few others.
But in general the majority of the Bill of Rights is restrictions on feds.

got any links to back any of that up?? I didnt think so,,

so youre saying a state can change their constitution and execute people without a trial??? cause thats what you said means,,,

and I hate to break it to you but the fed constitution came first and is supreme to the states constitutions,,