It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by Hopechest
You would lose that argument.
You can still bear arms...nothing is infringed upon. The Supreme Court has said, multiple times, that firearms can be regulated...nothing in the second amendment says they cannot. The only stipulation is that you cannot ban them all.
You are completely wrong, and so is the "Supreme Court"...
The second amendment CLEARLY says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... it doesn't say BAN, it says INFRINGED, and putting regulations, increasing fees which would restrict many Americans from buying firearms, not to mention that it makes it a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT by IMPOSING high fees, are INFRINGEMENTS upon this RIGHT...
You are making the same type of arguments that leftwingers make about Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, which states CLEARLY that the only type of government that shall be guaranteed to the states in this union is a REPUBLICAN form of government.
Now leftwingers in power, and others CLAIM that "nobody knows what the founding fathers meant by "REPUBLICAN form of government", when it should be clear...
BTW, most of those "Republicans" in power these days do not really represent what being a Republican means. They have been bribed and corrupted by the elites, so that the party of the people, the Republican party, would lose the backing of many Americans, and more so the poor and even many among the middle class.
edit on 22-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by Hopechest
You would lose that argument.
You can still bear arms...nothing is infringed upon. The Supreme Court has said, multiple times, that firearms can be regulated...nothing in the second amendment says they cannot. The only stipulation is that you cannot ban them all.
You are completely wrong, and so is the "Supreme Court"...
The second amendment CLEARLY says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... it doesn't say BAN, it says INFRINGED, and putting regulations, increasing fees which would restrict many Americans from buying firearms, not to mention that it makes it a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT by IMPOSING high fees, are INFRINGEMENTS upon this RIGHT...
You are making the same type of arguments that leftwingers make about Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, which states CLEARLY that the only type of government that shall be guaranteed to the states in this union is a REPUBLICAN form of government.
Now leftwingers in power, and others CLAIM that "nobody knows what the founding fathers meant by "REPUBLICAN form of government", when it should be clear...
BTW, most of those "Republicans" in power these days do not really represent what being a Republican means. They have been bribed and corrupted by the elites, so that the party of the people, the Republican party, would lose the backing of many Americans, and more so the poor and even many among the middle class.
edit on 22-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)
Technically you're wrong...
These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
laws imposing conditions on commercial sales
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by NavyDoc
Again, I'm not the one being regulated. Using your analogy... If a State passed laws which required PC makers to fit their products with some sort of hard coded ID chip, that would be regulating the PC, not the people using them. The PC makers might decide that they cannot comply and simply stop selling PCs in my state but, in no way have my freedom of speech rights been violated. Only the tools used to express my viewpoints have been limited.
I'm not saying I agree with it but I don't think it violates Constitutional law.
Also, I understand that no state shall pass laws that infringe upon right granted by the Bill of Rights. That wasn't my point.... the point was that Conservatives constantly harp about State sovereignty... unless it pisses them off.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Technically you're wrong...
These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)
infringe
1 actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
2 act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties
...
Amendment II
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.
...
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Technically you're wrong...
These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by howmuch4another
Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?
nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.
reply to FortAnthem
they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.
Originally posted by slugger9787
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Technically you're wrong...
These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)
first off you sound like a young kid prefacing your comments with the word "Technically..."
second, you are wrong.
keep means hold, store, possess, have, own, purchase
bear means use, carry, move, transport, employ,
the core or primary issue is the article ARMS.
the secondary issue is all the necessary fringe articles needed for ARMS. that is weapons.
secondary issues and articles are ammunition, bullets, magazines, typpes of bullets, powder, types of firearms, primers, licenses, registrations, classes, approvals, fees and the like all INFRINGE on the right to keep and bear arms.
so the right is being eroded away, by the fringe secondary requirements being regulated.
In total, an estimated 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws are on the books. Some of these laws cover individual buyers; some govern what can be made and sold. Others regulate how and under what terms and conditions firearms and ammunition can be distributed throughout the country. Firearms and ammunition, while exempt from the CPSA, are subject to the same product-liability laws as other products. As such, the firearms and ammunition industry is dedicated to the manufacturing of quality, safe products for use by responsible, law-abiding citizens.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
If I understand you correctly, You're saying that it's unconstitutional to place any regulations and/or restrictions on gun makers.
The fact of the matter is that the gun industry is highly regulated at the Federal level already, but not by the CPA.
Currently it is illegal to sell to the public; sawed off shotguns, armor piercing rounds, & 'machine guns'. Each gun manufactured must be marked with an indelible serial number.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
If I understand you correctly, You're saying that it's unconstitutional to place any regulations and/or restrictions on gun makers.
The fact of the matter is that the gun industry is highly regulated at the Federal level already, but not by the CPA.
Currently it is illegal to sell to the public; sawed off shotguns, armor piercing rounds, & 'machine guns'. Each gun manufactured must be marked with an indelible serial number.
And it is against the Constitution and the Amendments.
"Shall not infringe" is very easy to understand.
I asked my 6 year old this. Her reply was, "No rules on it dad".
So, a 6 year old gets it, yet you don't.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
I'm sure your 6 year old is very bright...
...but please explain to her the difference between ownership and manufacturing. The 'rules' we are talking about apply to manufacturing, not ownership. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand?
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell hand grenades to the genral public. Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell land mines to the general public. Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell weapons grade Plutonium to the general public.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...do you think she should be able to walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon? The Bill of Rights makes no mention of age restriction but I'm betting that you wouldn't want her or her friends buying a gun.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Your 'logic' fails under scrutiny... which is understandable considering it came from a child.
Originally posted by DC434L2A
Just a question or two: wouldn't a few swipes of 1500 grit sandpaper remove any micro stamps? Heck, even just the back pressure on the primer seems like it would burnish the stamping out of existance in a few thousand.rounds.
So, an expensive, mandated alteration to a weapon design that at best, will disapear on its own, or at worst takes five minutes to do away with.
What problem is this a solution to, anyway?
Originally posted by macman
This is very simple. Shall not infringe. There is no statement as to "You shall not infringe, except in these cases......."
Really??? The old Progressive talking points of hand grenades and rocket launchers. Now I know who I am dealing with.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...do you think she should be able to walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon? The Bill of Rights makes no mention of age restriction but I'm betting that you wouldn't want her or her friends buying a gun.
How it is written, yes. Not very difficult.
f yo and other Progressives want it to be legal, within the Constitution, why not do it the right way, instead of using progressive judges to legislate from the bench?
now why. Because as a whole, you and other progressives know that trying to do it the correct way, would be like hitting a brick wall, and you don't want that.
Only the fact that even a child can understand these things. Yet, Progressives make it difficult and confusing to understand.
As for an example, I bring you the brainchild of the Progressives. The US Income Tax code.
Nuff said.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Oooh... we're gettin nasty now eh?
Originally posted by macman
This is very simple. Shall not infringe. There is no statement as to "You shall not infringe, except in these cases......."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed upon.
The legislation we're discussing does not infringe upon those rights.... only the manufacture. See the difference? No? Go ask your daughter... maybe she can explain it to you
Really??? The old Progressive talking points of hand grenades and rocket launchers. Now I know who I am dealing with.
Yes reeeeeaaallly.... it's logic man. It's employed by progressives as well as others.
And no... you don't know who you're dealing with... you only think you do
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...do you think she should be able to walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon? The Bill of Rights makes no mention of age restriction but I'm betting that you wouldn't want her or her friends buying a gun.
How it is written, yes. Not very difficult.
I call BS. I don't believe you're being sincere. You don't think sales should be restricted? Tell you what... when all restrictions on sales of guns are removed, I'll be on the street corner across from your daughter's school selling .38s cheep... I'll even throw in free ammo. I bet you'd like that eh?
f yo and other Progressives want it to be legal, within the Constitution, why not do it the right way, instead of using progressive judges to legislate from the bench?
Fair enough...
now why. Because as a whole, you and other progressives know that trying to do it the correct way, would be like hitting a brick wall, and you don't want that.
There you go again... thinking you know. Dude.... it's their state. They can do what they want within the limits of the constitution... my point is that they are within the limits. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Only the fact that even a child can understand these things. Yet, Progressives make it difficult and confusing to understand.
Well then you should get her to explain the difference between regulating and restricting manufacture and sales as opposed to an individuals right to keep and bear.
As for an example, I bring you the brainchild of the Progressives. The US Income Tax code.
Good lawd... History much?
The current tax code was signed into law by Ronald Reagn back in 1986. I can't blame you for not knowing that though... since you daughter is only 6 she wouldn't remember.
Nuff said.
Agreed... I think you should give it a rest.... maybe go take a nap or something.
...but I'm not done.
“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”
--Ronald Reagan, (progressive swine!) in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”
--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
He said lots more but I think you get the idea....
Say g'night kiddos...