M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #61
So, your answer is no, you -cannot- present an argument that a ban on ‘assault weapons’ is constitutional
Thank you. Run along.
Ban on assault weapons Constitutional?
- Thread starter M14 Shooter
- Start date
Thank you. Run along.
jillian
Princess
who's "she"?
like i said... what do you think the likelihood of them seriously taking on this legislation?
not just the odd lipservice statement.
i'll wait...
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #63
You.
You didn't answer my question - cleaned any good courthouses lately?
And hey -- sick day? Janitors for proefssional buildings usually work 2nd shift...?
Hope you feel better.
jillian
Princess
there was a question, 'tard?
all i saw was a lot of fauxrage. *shrug*
i'm sorry you're not smart enough to make a cogent argument. but i hope your little rant made you feel good about yourself. i know how difficult it is for people like you to find any self-esteem unless you're holding a gun.
it makes up for a lot of "shortcomings", doesn't it?
Last edited:
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
Odd lip service?
You mean like letting guns walk to undermine rights. Not caring who is murdered in the process.
Really?
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #66
FU and your run along. Under the Robert's Court common sense isn't likely to prevail. As I noted previously, you don't give a damn about those injured or killed. You're a punk, likely a small punk whose need for a firearm is necessary because the mouth is big and the yellow stripe is bigger.
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
jillian
Princess
baby bush had the same program...
and if you think it was to "undermine gun rights" then i'd suggest you have a vivid imagination.
That it is constitutional, or that it is constitutional as read through the rulings in Heller and McDonald? Because those are two very different questions.
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
Yes he did with some serious differences, But you knew that and are trying to justify murder.
jillian
Princess
why would i justify murder.
the only "serious difference" i can see is that this one went bad and people got killed.
because no police endeavor ever goes bad, eh?
you might also want to reassess b/c you don't have a clue about my opinion of the AWB that used to be in effect or my opinion about guns.
Dr.Traveler
Mathematician
- Aug 31, 2009
- 3,948
- 652
- 190
Honestly, the 2nd ammendment almost certainly does make any effort to outright ban arms, including handguns and assault weapons, unconstitutional. However, requiring registration, waiting periods, and liscensure, of such weapons would be constitutional as long as it didn't constitute undo burden of your rights. That would be the corollary to saying picture ID requirements, requiring permits for public gatherings, and some of the restrictions placed on abortion are legal. So namely a right can't be violated, but it can be regulated for public safety as long as there is no undue burden.
I'd be very very curious in the related question though: at what point can ownership of a weapon be banned? Clearly ownership of a nuke is unreasonable. How about a fixed position chain fed heavy machine gun?
I'd be very very curious in the related question though: at what point can ownership of a weapon be banned? Clearly ownership of a nuke is unreasonable. How about a fixed position chain fed heavy machine gun?
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Obviously, you missed that part about a WELL-REGULATED militia.
I think an assault weapons ban is kind of silly because the definition is arbitrary.
Strict licsensing, strict training. Strict controls on gun sellers, and if one of your guns ends up at a crime scene, you are held liable, no matter how it got there.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Straight up LIE. Under Bush the program was a JOINT operation between the US and Mexico with clear distinct plans to track the weapons IN MEXICO. After 400 or so weapons were let go into the sting it was discovered that once in Mexico they were un traceable. SO the program was STOPPED.
Fast and Furious did not involve even informing the Mexican Government. It did not even have as part of the plan ANY effort to track the weapons once outside the US and NO plan to prevent the weapons from leaving the US. Local ATF agents complained about the weapons being lost and no arrests being made in the US and were ignored.
Further Fast and Furious data was given to the FBI without informing them the weapons were part of a federal program, the information was used to claim 90 percent of identified weapons recovered at crime scenes or raids were illegal purchased in the US in a blatant attempt to raise concerns about gun laws IN the US.
Even that information was wrong as the 90 percent was only on weapons identified as to source, MOST of the captured weapons were never identified as to where they came from.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #75
Yes there was, fraud. And you avoided it. Again.
But, that's expected.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #76
I'm sorry that you don't like being dismissed, but since you cannot meet the challenge put to you, what else is there?
Off you go. Buhbye.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #77
Given that Heller and McDonald are contrilling law, you make a distinction w/o a difference.
Can you make the argument asked of you, or not?
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #78
Why do you clean courthouses?
I mean other than your lack of an education or any useful skills?
eflatminor
Classical Liberal
- May 24, 2011
- 10,643
- 1,670
- 245
No, you said:
Different questions. But I'll answer the other one. The likelihood that the gun grabbers will take on another AWB is low for two reasons: 1) The economy and fiscal situation is so FUBAR that no one will possibly support focusing on an unrelated issue like gun control; and 2) Those of us that understand the 2A are many in number...and we all vote. Sucks for the gun grabbers I guess.
Now, if you think for one second these people aren't talking with dead seriousness about imposing as many restrictions on our innate rights as they can, you're fooling yourself. They look for any opportunity to make their emotionally-based pleas for more control. They are serious but so are we.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #80
I am sure people here disagree.
Of course, they have yet to make an argument opposite yours.
Well, no - they would be constitutional if the state can show a compelling interest in the effect and the restriction in question is the least restrictive means to that end.
Yes and no.
There is a clear compelling interest for picture ID requirements for, say, voting, as the state needs to take at least minimal steps to determine that you are who you say you are. If not, the state cannot ensure equal protection and your right to vote is diminished.
Permits for public gatherings might be an effective analogy of you're comparing apples to apples - but if you want to argue that a permit for a public gathering compares to and tus illustrates the constutitionality of a permit for simple posession of a firearm, you're arguing apples and oranges.
Regulations on abortion are valid so long as the 'compelling state interest' test is passed.
See "compelling state interest", noted above.
Rhe right to arms is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right of the individual, and as such, falls under "strict scrutiny'.
Depends. Based on what?
Ownership by felons, etc, can be banned thru due process.
If you mean the sort of weapon, then you need to delve into the defintion of "arms".
Current holding is that "arms" covers any class of firearm you care to mention as all of them are of common, ordinary issue and are suitable for militia service.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
If we can bomb iran and remove its leader from the gene pool
- Started by Hurricanelover
- Replies: 4
-
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 2
