The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

[
Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

We have a Second Amendment; why do we have Any security problems in our free States?

no one takes a troll like you seriously

you are completely clueless about constitutional theory

only those who are full of fallacy, say that.

 

[turtledude]

only those who are full of fallacy, say that.

you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship. You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke

 

[danielpalos]

only those who are full of fallacy, say that.

you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship. You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke

did you know that diversion is usually considered a fallacy; you either have valid arguments for rebuttal, or you don't.

and,

local chics are welcome to call me on my happy camper policy, whenever they want.

full body massage with happy ending, one to three hours at a time.

 

[rich stacy]

No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control. Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed. Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was followed by Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

 

[danielpalos]

No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control. Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed. Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was followed by Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

A fallacy of composition? Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process.

 

[turtledude]

No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control. Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed. Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was followed by Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

yep I know that. the Miller case was a fraud and it didn't even give any argument why the federal government had such power-it merely ASSUMED IT DID and then pretended that the second amendment didn't stop that power

 

[turtledude]

only those who are full of fallacy, say that.

you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship. You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke

did you know that diversion is usually considered a fallacy; you either have valid arguments for rebuttal, or you don't.

and,

local chics are welcome to call me on my happy camper policy, whenever they want.

full body massage with happy ending, one to three hours at a time.

you're an idiot Daniel. You've been banned on numerous sites and you are well known for making crap up that you never ever can support

 

[danielpalos]

only those who are full of fallacy, say that.

you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship. You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke

did you know that diversion is usually considered a fallacy; you either have valid arguments for rebuttal, or you don't.

and,

local chics are welcome to call me on my happy camper policy, whenever they want.

full body massage with happy ending, one to three hours at a time.

you're an idiot Daniel. You've been banned on numerous sites and you are well known for making crap up that you never ever can support

only the full of fallacy right wingers say that; are they too socialist to compete with better arguments at lower cost? let's ask boss or ding.

 

[Lakhota]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

 

[turtledude]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

Yes, it should read like this


Congress shall make no law nor regulation pertaining to the right of the people collectively and individually, to keep, bear, possess, use or otherwise acquire arms. Any Federal official who attempts to interfere with said right shall be deemed guilty o high treason and shall be treated as a traitor

 

[hadit]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

Good luck with that.

 

[rich stacy]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

Yes, it should read like this


Congress shall make no law nor regulation pertaining to the right of the people collectively and individually, to keep, bear, possess, use or otherwise acquire arms. Any Federal official who attempts to interfere with said right shall be deemed guilty o high treason and shall be treated as a traitor

Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.

If you made such a 2nd amendment retroactive, you open up a can of worms overturning everything from the SALT treaty to keeping terrorists from getting WMD's.

 

[danielpalos]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

There is nothing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land; including our Second Amendment.

 

[turtledude]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

Yes, it should read like this


Congress shall make no law nor regulation pertaining to the right of the people collectively and individually, to keep, bear, possess, use or otherwise acquire arms. Any Federal official who attempts to interfere with said right shall be deemed guilty o high treason and shall be treated as a traitor

Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.

If you made such a 2nd amendment retroactive, you open up a can of worms overturning everything from the SALT treaty to keeping terrorists from getting WMD's.

even scalia was afraid to properly interpret the commerce clause since a proper interpretation not only would wipe away gun control but

Title VII
Title IX
Social Security
Obama Care
Medicare
Medicaid

which is why many conservative jurists are dishonest about gun control

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.

Until overturned by the court applying said amendment to them.
Fortunately, we don't need "new" amendment for that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

/---- well using your gun grabbing logic all of the original amendments were written at the same time and all are antiquated- using you Gun Grabbing logic.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.

Keep dreaming.

That's like saying, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and later the 13th amendment was ratified, it meant people couldn't bring "new" people into slavery any more, but the people who were already slaves in the U.S. had to stay that way.

Liberals come up with the weirdest Fake Laws to try to get their way sometimes.

 

[Little-Acorn]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Two funny things about this case:

1.) It ruled that military-style weapons are definitely protected by the 2nd amendment. But the government has spent vast amounts of time trying to restrict or ban exactly those kinds of weapons (so-called "assault weapons") for years, in direct violation of the US v. Miller ruling... and are still trying today!

2.) When US v. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court, no one showed up for the defense. Miller didn't show up, his lawyer didn't show up, nobody wrote any "Friends of the court" briefings or anything else for Miller's side. (Miller was found dead in a stream bed a few weeks later, with four pistol bullets in his chest). Only the government prosecutors showed up. The other side of the Courtroom was completely empty.

The prosecutors took advantage of this huge windfall, and read several flat lies into the record ( a. The 2nd protects only military-style weapons, b. Miller's short-barreled shotgun was not similar to a military weapon, c. The 2nd only protected members of the military or militia etc.). Since nobody was there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped these lies into an Opinion that ruled against the absent Miller.

US v. Miller was one of the most complete miscarriages of justice ever seen in the history of the U.S.

In case you were wondering why the government has been so careful to NEVER re-examine the Miller case, now you know. If the Miller case were ever brought up for re-examination, with both sides present this time, it would be overturned in five minutes. And all the court rulings that used it as a basis, would quickly fall like dominos... and that's nearly all of the "gun control" cases.

 

[danielpalos]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Two funny things about this case:

1.) It ruled that military-style weapons are definitely protected by the 2nd amendment. But the government has spent vast amounts of time trying to restrict or ban exactly those kinds of weapons (so-called "assault weapons") for years, in direct violation of the US v. Miller ruling... and are still trying today!

2.) When US v. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court, no one showed up for the defense. Miller didn't show up, his lawyer didn't show up, nobody wrote any "Friends of the court" briefings or anything else for Miller's side. (Miller was found dead in a stream bed a few weeks later, with four pistol bullets in his chest). Only the government prosecutors showed up. The other side of the Courtroom was completely empty.

The prosecutors took advantage of this huge windfall, and read several flat lies into the record ( a. The 2nd protects only military-style weapons, b. Miller's short-barreled shotgun was not similar to a military weapon, c. The 2nd only protected members of the military or militia etc.). Since nobody was there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped these lies into an Opinion that ruled against the absent Miller.

US v. Miller was one of the most complete miscarriages of justice ever seen in the history of the U.S.

In case you were wondering why the government has been so careful to NEVER re-examine the Miller case, now you know. If the Miller case were ever brought up for re-examination, with both sides present this time, it would be overturned in five minutes. And all the court rulings that used it as a basis, would quickly fall like dominos... and that's nearly all of the "gun control" cases.

It wasn't a Second Amendment issue, it was a Commerce Clause issue.

 

[Skull Pilot]

None of our rights are without restrictions.

only the ones that shall not be infringed