So, anti gunners who say no one wants to take our guns...what about the 4th circuit gun ban?

[JakeStarkey]

(1) No one is coming to take away your weapons.
(2) No one in the future is going to take your weapons.
(3) Citizens have no constitutional right to "weapons of war," a finding which Roberts' court will uphold particularly with Gorsuch coming on board.

Not until a widely acceptable agreement is reached on just what the term, "weapons of war," actually refers to -- starting with the atomic bomb and considering that the very ordinary pump action 12 gauge shotgun was effectively (and preferably) used in the jungles of Vietnam.

And World WAr 1....

Consider what miketx said and shut up until you have, because you are not showing a clear think process.

 

[martybegan]

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people. So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not? Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Infringement does not mean an absence of state regulation for ownership of a firearm.

Dodging again. Why should I have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver? What is the purpose except to make it so difficult that a person gives up? Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging you ******* hack

So your poor language and your behavior kicking your heels on the floor and crying merely means you don't like the law.

Work to change it.

The real issue is that you are a libertarian, a lame brained political philosophy if ever one existed, where the strong torture the weak who have no protection of law.

Answer the question. And the law should have been overturned decades ago.

And that's anarchy, something your side of the aisle has on their fringe element.

ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU DIME STORE HACK.

 

[danielpalos]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.

I don't need a printing press in my garage either, rights are not merely a matter of "needing"...as for "weapons of war", if they can be effectively defined so as to never, in any way, infringe on gun rights then I would be willing to test those laws as long as they came with expiration dates that required renewing every couple of years...what the 2nd amendment argument has effectively done is expose those who have claimed to be defenders of the constitution when all they really had was an agenda to push through legislation they could not otherwise win through the ballot box and hid behind it through interpretation.

I make a motion to abolish gun control laws, in favor of wellness of regulation being a punishment option for any gun lovers having an inferior excuse, in any superior Court.

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

According to Heller that isn't enough......any gun able to be carried by an individual is Constitutional....

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people.

So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not?

Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Infringement does not mean an absence of state regulation for ownership of a firearm.

Dodging again. Why should I have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What is the purpose except to make it so difficult that a person gives up?

Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging you ******* hack

It is a Poll Tax and needs to be ended.......try putting a 1,000 dollar tax on voting and see how the left bitches....

 

[JakeStarkey]

2aguy keeps ignoring the fact that the courts, looking at the Constitution and the legislatures' actions, will make the decision.

He has one opinion, which is wrong, I think.

 

[Winston]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people.

So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not?

Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Infringement does not mean an absence of state regulation for ownership of a firearm.

Dodging again. Why should I have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What is the purpose except to make it so difficult that a person gives up?

Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging you ******* hack

Because it is the law? Are you somehow under that impression that waiting six months and paying a thousand bucks "infringes" upon your right to bear arms? Don't want to wait six months, go buy a shotgun at Walmart. A shotgun is "arms". Don't want to pay a thousand bucks, buy a cheap shotgun at Walmart. A cheap shotgun is "arms". So this waiting period for handguns, and this thousand dollar permit, does not infringe upon your right to bear arms, it merely infringes upon your right to bear a particular type of arms. As long as that infringement does not significantly impair your ability to defend yourself, it is constitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

]So your poor language and your behavior kicking your heels on the floor and crying merely means you don't like the law. Work to change it.

The real issue is that you are a libertarian, a lame brained political philosophy if ever one existed, where the strong torture the weak who have no protection of law.

Answer the question. And the law should have been overturned decades ago.

And that's anarchy, something your side of the aisle has on their fringe element.

ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU DIME STORE HACK.

Your question was easily answered and more easily dismissed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

I am against the "negligence" of a State, that fails to provide wellness of regulation free of charge, to the unorganized militia, in a more easy and convenient manner.

Can you ever answer a question simply?

he's too simple to do that

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people.

So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not?

Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Infringement does not mean an absence of state regulation for ownership of a firearm.

Dodging again. Why should I have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What is the purpose except to make it so difficult that a person gives up?

Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging you ******* hack

Because it is the law? Are you somehow under that impression that waiting six months and paying a thousand bucks "infringes" upon your right to bear arms? Don't want to wait six months, go buy a shotgun at Walmart. A shotgun is "arms". Don't want to pay a thousand bucks, buy a cheap shotgun at Walmart. A cheap shotgun is "arms". So this waiting period for handguns, and this thousand dollar permit, does not infringe upon your right to bear arms, it merely infringes upon your right to bear a particular type of arms. As long as that infringement does not significantly impair your ability to defend yourself, it is constitutional.

you do know that handguns are also arms don't you?

 

[danielpalos]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

According to Heller that isn't enough......any gun able to be carried by an individual is Constitutional....

that only applies to those individuals, who are necessary to the security of a free State.

the police power applies to the unorganized militia in their unorganized capacity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

I am against the "negligence" of a State, that fails to provide wellness of regulation free of charge, to the unorganized militia, in a more easy and convenient manner.

Can you ever answer a question simply?

he's too simple to do that

Only the simples don't understand the question was answered.

 

[there4eyeM]

How is the assumption that all 'bearable' arms must be available substantiated by the 2nd? As long as some arms can be possessed, bearing those arms is protected. What would keep the courts or law makers from selecting some arms as prohibited?

 

[martybegan]

2aguy keeps ignoring the fact that the courts, looking at the Constitution and the legislatures' actions, will make the decision.

He has one opinion, which is wrong, I think.

More appeal to authority from the chief bloviator of it. I guess since the courts ruled that Jim Crow as OK back in the day, you would have been fine with it.

 

[martybegan]

]So your poor language and your behavior kicking your heels on the floor and crying merely means you don't like the law. Work to change it.

The real issue is that you are a libertarian, a lame brained political philosophy if ever one existed, where the strong torture the weak who have no protection of law.

Answer the question. And the law should have been overturned decades ago.

And that's anarchy, something your side of the aisle has on their fringe element.

ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU DIME STORE HACK.

Your question was easily answered and more easily dismissed.

You didn't answer it, and you can never dismiss it.

Answer the question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I love it when Marty begins his demand that Appeal to Authority is somehow a failure, when in our land the opining authority on matters Constitutional are the courts, not the Martys.

Marty's great fault is that he argues from personal belief rather than impersonal and objective logic.

Now he will start shouting and get silly.

Watch.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy keeps ignoring the fact that the courts, looking at the Constitution and the legislatures' actions, will make the decision.

He has one opinion, which is wrong, I think.

More appeal to authority from the chief bloviator of it. I guess since the courts ruled that Jim Crow as OK back in the day, you would have been fine with it.

Don't forget the 7 democrat Justices who sald Dredd Scot was okay too....

 

[2aguy]

I love it when Marty begins his demand that Appeal to Authority is somehow a failure, when in our land the opining authority on matters Constitutional are the courts, not the Martys.

Marty's great fault is that he argues from personal belief rather than impersonal and objective logic.

Now he will start shouting and get silly.

Watch.

And what did the court say....here is Heller..the high points......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
----Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

-----We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-----Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

-----In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

----Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

---

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

According to Heller that isn't enough......any gun able to be carried by an individual is Constitutional....

that only applies to those individuals, who are necessary to the security of a free State.

the police power applies to the unorganized militia in their unorganized capacity.

Nope.....keep repeating this...I need to fall asleep......Here is Heller...

----Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
----Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

-----We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

 

[CatInTheSplat]

I can't seem to find "war weapons can be banned" in the 2nd Amendment. That's really the only point that matters.

Well except that an AR 15 isn't a "war weapon"