The NFA and all subsequent "laws" should be immediately repealed. Agree or Disagree?

[night_son]

Fakey Jakey is that you?

You must have missed the entirety of both (recent) Afghan wars. Since you are history blind allow me to educate you. Poor mountain men equipped (originally) with centuries old muzzle loading rifles defeated the two most powerful military forces ever to arise in human history. They drove the Soviet armed forces out of their ancestral land in less than ten years. A few decades later, those same mountain men fought and effectively defeated the modern United States armed forces after nearly twenty years of living that war; living inside of that warzone 24/7.

To go through life believing any military technology is omnipotent or impervious must be quite a special experience. Technology is fallible; men even more so. But it's great that you've decided to surrender early.

You're an idiot if you think we were defeated in Afghanistan.

I'll take that as affirmation of my suspicion. Thanks.

 

[Anomalism]

I'll take that as affirmation of my suspicion. Thanks.

You people are delusional if you think you can fight the government successfully, especially on their turf.

 

[danielpalos]

Fakey Jakey is that you?

You must have missed the entirety of both (recent) Afghan wars. Since you are history blind allow me to educate you. Poor mountain men equipped (originally) with centuries old muzzle loading rifles defeated the two most powerful military forces ever to arise in human history. They drove the Soviet armed forces out of their ancestral land in less than ten years. A few decades later, those same mountain men fought and effectively defeated the modern United States armed forces after nearly twenty years of living that war; living inside of that warzone 24/7.

To go through life believing any military technology is omnipotent or impervious must be quite a special experience. Technology is fallible; men even more so. But it's great that you've decided to surrender early.

You're an idiot if you think we were defeated in Afghanistan.

All discretionary spending should go before entitlement spending.

 

[Anomalism]

You realize this only represents the REAL will of USMB members and given USMB is predominantly right leaning, I think we know what it will be.

How did y'all lefties let these clowns take over the forum? Good lord.

 

[Anomalism]

All discretionary spending should go before entitlement spending.

I also think the war never should have happened. All that to kill an old man? We lost a lot more in retaliating than we did from the attack.

 

[danielpalos]

I'll take that as affirmation of my suspicion. Thanks.

You people are delusional if you think you can fight the government successfully, especially on their turf.

There is no general warfare clause in our federal Constitution nor even a general Defense clause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That would be by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

The political class does not want to share power. This is just a symptom of their niggardly nature.

Not that it shouldn't be cited or that it wouldn't help, but even so, many black activists tend to take the view that the 13th, 14th Amendments etc. serve only to strengthen certain universal human rights already enumerated in the first ten Amendments, the original Bill of Rights.

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Gun rights are important “privileges and immunities” after all.

More ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

The privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment applies solely to the Federal government (see The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)).

Much of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states and local jurisdictions through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment via incorporation doctrine. The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

Incorporation Doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That would be by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

The political class does not want to share power. This is just a symptom of their niggardly nature.

Not that it shouldn't be cited or that it wouldn't help, but even so, many black activists tend to take the view that the 13th, 14th Amendments etc. serve only to strengthen certain universal human rights already enumerated in the first ten Amendments, the original Bill of Rights.

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Gun rights are important “privileges and immunities” after all.

More ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

The privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment applies solely to the Federal government (see The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)).

Much of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states and local jurisdictions through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment via incorporation doctrine. The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

Incorporation Doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

.

Wrong (really wrong)



Back to law school with you!!!

 

[justinacolmena]

More ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

Wrong again. I don’t subscribe to jackass Democrat legal interpretation, and I don’t pay for such niggardly legal representation.

The privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment applies solely to the Federal government (see The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)).

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...”
And you’re saying this applies solely to the Federal government, and not to the States respectively? How? Are you illiterate?

Much of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states and local jurisdictions through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment via incorporation doctrine. The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

2010? It looks like you’re off by 221 years. How can you be so ignorant?
“Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights.”

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

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.

constitutioncenter.org

That is, a right that “shall not be infringed” within the context of a “free State” mentioned explicitly. It is absurd to even argue that this is not intended to apply to state and local jurisdictions as well as federal.

 

[joeldr2x]

It seems to me the whole second amendment needs to be rewritten. Our founding fathers didn't have crystal balls and couldn't forsee what arms would become. So if you want to put it in context, we all should be carrying rifles, muskets, and ramrods. Websters definition or arms are both offensive and defensive weapons. So according to Barnsworth's interpretation of the second amendment and getting rid of the NFA I should be able to carry an RPG loaded. I think not, I live in a rural area and own a shotgun for the purpose of getting rid of posinous snakes, etc. So I am not against arms but there needs to be rules for getting them, specifications for them for use by citizen. Of course different rules would apply to our military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems to me the whole second amendment needs to be rewritten. Our founding fathers didn't have crystal balls and couldn't forsee what arms would become. So if you want to put it in context, we all should be carrying rifles, muskets, and ramrods. Websters definition or arms are both offensive and defensive weapons. So according to Barnsworth's interpretation of the second amendment and getting rid of the NFA I should be able to carry an RPG loaded. I think not, I live in a rural area and own a shotgun for the purpose of getting rid of posinous snakes, etc. So I am not against arms but there needs to be rules for getting them, specifications for them for use by citizen. Of course different rules would apply to our military.

No need to ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment (that’s not how it works, btw.)

As with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving; we should let that case law continue to evolve by allowing the states and local jurisdictions to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment.

Residents of the states and local jurisdictions are at liberty to challenge those measures to either have them repealed via the political process or invalidated by the courts through the judicial process.

During the coming decades, the courts will determine what measures are Constitutional and what measures are repugnant to the Second Amendment; in time there will be comprehensive jurisprudence to guide lawmakers as to what is appropriate and lawful firearm regulation and what is not.

 

[danielpalos]

More ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

Wrong again. I don’t subscribe to jackass Democrat legal interpretation, and I don’t pay for such niggardly legal representation.

The privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment applies solely to the Federal government (see The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)).

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...”
And you’re saying this applies solely to the Federal government, and not to the States respectively? How? Are you illiterate?

Much of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states and local jurisdictions through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment via incorporation doctrine. The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

2010? It looks like you’re off by 221 years. How can you be so ignorant?
“Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights.”

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

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.

constitutioncenter.org

That is, a right that “shall not be infringed” within the context of a “free State” mentioned explicitly. It is absurd to even argue that this is not intended to apply to state and local jurisdictions as well as federal.

We regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. The unorganized militia is subject to the police power of a State for civil and criminal purposes.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Illinois State Constitution

 

[joeldr2x]

It seems to me the whole second amendment needs to be rewritten. Our founding fathers didn't have crystal balls and couldn't forsee what arms would become. So if you want to put it in context, we all should be carrying rifles, muskets, and ramrods. Websters definition or arms are both offensive and defensive weapons. So according to Barnsworth's interpretation of the second amendment and getting rid of the NFA I should be able to carry an RPG loaded. I think not, I live in a rural area and own a shotgun for the purpose of getting rid of posinous snakes, etc. So I am not against arms but there needs to be rules for getting them, specifications for them for use by citizen. Of course different rules would apply to our military.

No need to ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment (that’s not how it works, btw.)

As with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving; we should let that case law continue to evolve by allowing the states and local jurisdictions to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment.

Residents of the states and local jurisdictions are at liberty to challenge those measures to either have them repealed via the political process or invalidated by the courts through the judicial process.

During the coming decades, the courts will determine what measures are Constitutional and what measures are repugnant to the Second Amendment; in time there will be comprehensive jurisprudence to guide lawmakers as to what is appropriate and lawful firearm regulation and what is not.

I respect your point of view but i believe that the whole constitution needs to be junked and a new one put in its place,
that truly quarantess liberty and justice for all. The second amendment is too loose and is open to too much interpretation and who ever controls the supreme court will rule in favor of their viewpoint which doesn't necessarily make it right. We live in a patriarchal racist republic. our political system is rife with corruption, gerrymandering, no term limits for all political, judicial appointments, regions instead of states and more than a two party system. I know most people think I'm way off base but until the people demand reforms from our political systems monied interests will continue to hold sway and lobbyist will continue to keep the swamp working. I am 80 and I know I won't see the kind of change that is needed to make this a true democracy. I lost faith when a con man Trump became president because of the undemocratic electoral college. Decades is a long time to wait to see if sensible firearms laws are enacted an upheld by our present constitution.