What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Biden says “No Amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
52,407
Reaction score
14,131
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.
Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,023
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,023
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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 does shall not be infringed mean to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO
if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,023
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.
what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

Doesn't matter what I think, which is the contents of the constitution can be changed and they were, just because it is written down doesn't mean squat, as evidenced in 1934.
shall not be infringed means you cannot touch it
If touched the people have the right to abolish said government
So try it see how you survive the wrath to come

Where the fuck did you get that complete BS from?
it's in our founding documents
The Declaration first says we have a right “to alter or to abolish” a government that becomes “destructive” of the ends for which it was formed, namely, securing our rights.

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
www.britannica.com › topic › Declaration-of

So, the amendments come to mind, why didn't we abolish the government?
in case you forgot the right to keep and bear arms is also a right that the government is supposed to protect.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,023
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.
all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.
sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.
Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.
If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.
Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.
dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
122,025
Reaction score
37,448
Points
2,290
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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 does shall not be infringed mean to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

Understand, you will NEVER disarm Americans, you can try
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
8,495
Reaction score
2,990
Points
345
Location
Camarillo, CA
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,023
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
We do. You simply appeal to ignorance, like right-wingers are wont to do by custom and habit.
that's not the militia because they can't KEEP and bear arms
So, if I prove you wrong are you going to publicly quit the right-wing and acknowledge you used to be a right-winger and used to have a right-wing problem?
you been proven wrong so many times
THE MILITARY YOU SPAEK OF CAN'T KEEP THEIR WEAPONS AND TAKE THEM HOME
Show us the law, right winger. You seem to have nothing but false witness bearing instead of any valid and rational arguments.
show me where the military in California can keep their firearms and take them home?
the right of the people to KEEP and Bear arms
It has to cost You something, right-winger.

So, if I prove you wrong are you going to publicly quit the right-wing and acknowledge you used to be a right-winger and used to have a right-wing problem?
no dumbass put up or shut the fuck up
Show us where troops in California can keep their weapons and take them home if not they are not part of any militia
Thanks for playing.
still waiting on your results
HOW MANY TROOPS IN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD KEEP THEIR FIREARMS AND TAKE THEM HOME?
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,023
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg
really? love the photoshop battle
images
 

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
13,565
Reaction score
6,923
Points
1,065
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg
Cops don't kill people because they saw a gun. Cops shoot people when perps are threatening to shoot cops with a gun. If you get stopped and have a concealed gun and tell the cop about it, where it is, etc. and keep your hands where the cop can see them, you will not get shot.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
32,139
Reaction score
9,212
Points
1,290
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
122,025
Reaction score
37,448
Points
2,290
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every other free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China
 
Last edited:

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
32,139
Reaction score
9,212
Points
1,290
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every otger free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China

I have no clue as to why you would reply this way to my reply.

When the cops blast someone because they say they saw a gun, like say Philando Castile you get people cheering the cops. Many of these people support 2nd Amendment rights for themselves.

As long as cops can kill you because they believe they see a gun, we do not have our rights being protected.

You know, Ammon Bundy understood this.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
21,698
Reaction score
4,714
Points
290
While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.
all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute
There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.
I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion
Our Second Amendment absolutely states it is a well regulated militia that is Necessary to the security of a free State.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on any federal firearms restrictions.
And while it does say that a reason for that is to ensure there is a well practiced militia there when needed, that in no way implies that is the only reason why federal firearms restrictions are banned.

A well regulated militia is also necessary for state protection, municipal posses, and individual home protection.

The late Antonin Scalia disagreed with you. I suppose he is a liberal.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
122,025
Reaction score
37,448
Points
2,290
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every otger free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China

I have no clue as to why you would reply this way to my reply.

When the cops blast someone because they say they saw a gun, like say Philando Castile you get people cheering the cops. Many of these people support 2nd Amendment rights for themselves.

As long as cops can kill you because they believe they see a gun, we do not have our rights being protected.

You know, Ammon Bundy understood this.

You sound moronic as if the 2A gets people killed
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,658
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
Ownership of firearms is a Federal RIGHT per the 2nd amendment, militia participation or not is not a requirement.
Not true. Criminals of the People get Infringed all the time. Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,023
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.
Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.
why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?
There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.
But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them
There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.
yes there is it's called the second amendment law of the land
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.
2qj96nkas7t61.jpg

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.
thing is you are clueless
I've gone through many out of state license checks and told the officer I was armed and I've never been shot
When you don't make threatening action against the police you don't get shot.
Change my mind
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,658
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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 does shall not be infringed mean to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO
if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.
Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top