And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by th3dudeabides


I guess not. Look at the recalls in Colorado.

reply to post by intrepid


Very simply the 2nd does not state anything about limiting the mentally ill, nor hunting nor anything else for that matter.

macman
reply to post by intrepid

 

Very simply the 2nd does not state anything about limiting the mentally ill, nor hunting nor anything else for that matter.

It doesn't say anything about individuals or offer a definition of "arms" either. Strictly speaking, the framers could at that point have only been referring to muskets, swords and the like since nothing else existed. It certainly doesn't say "any weapon ever to be created by man" either? Given your purposefully simplistic interpretation, the 2nd amendment could be used to justify ownership of nuclear weapons by individuals.

teslahowitzer
reply to post by macman

 

As crazy as this sounds, if,if we make it that far...and the mid-terms go to the Dims, the 2nd will be ammended, there will be no way to stop the complete control state. these control freaks have the WH, senate and if they get the house this is over, period. They can blab BS all they wish, but when the 2nd is gone the 1st goes with it.....talk about a crossroad.......

You might want to investigate how amendments are amended.

OK, actually they aren't. You make a new amendment to null and void the old amendment. That requires a constitutional convention. That would be a dream come true for me. While they are working on doing whatever to the 2nd amendment, I would be fighting to end "corporate personhood" and "money equals free speech".

theantediluvian

macman
reply to post by intrepid

 

Very simply the 2nd does not state anything about limiting the mentally ill, nor hunting nor anything else for that matter.

It doesn't say anything about individuals or offer a definition of "arms" either. Strictly speaking, the framers could at that point have only been referring to muskets, swords and the like since nothing else existed. It certainly doesn't say "any weapon ever to be created by man" either? Given your purposefully simplistic interpretation, the 2nd amendment could be used to justify ownership of nuclear weapons by individuals.

And the 1st Amendment says nothing about the internet.

Your point?

Invalid.

beezzer

theantediluvian

macman
reply to post by intrepid

 

Very simply the 2nd does not state anything about limiting the mentally ill, nor hunting nor anything else for that matter.

It doesn't say anything about individuals or offer a definition of "arms" either. Strictly speaking, the framers could at that point have only been referring to muskets, swords and the like since nothing else existed. It certainly doesn't say "any weapon ever to be created by man" either? Given your purposefully simplistic interpretation, the 2nd amendment could be used to justify ownership of nuclear weapons by individuals.

And the 1st Amendment says nothing about the internet.

Your point?

Invalid.

What? I was responding to this:

Very simply the 2nd does not state anything about limiting the mentally ill, nor hunting nor anything else for that matter.

I was making a point that the 2nd Amendment doesn't have any text about individuals or a description of what constitutes arms and that's why things are open to interpretation. You then jump in with "And the 1st Amendment says nothing about the internet." which actually supports MY POINT and then claim that you've somehow invalidated my point?

reply to post by alienreality


Remember what hopechest stated:

"I'd say we're good with the 2nd..."

That was after SH.

After Boston: ( paraphrased as best I can remember )

'There was no violation of the 4th amendment in Boston. Those people gave consent.'

Who is 'hopechest'?

Why, a specialist in The Constitution.

Mechanic has to know mechanics

In order to take an engine apart.

Where is hope chest, by thee way?

Wait'll rahmsie starts the gun ownership TAX/insurance/liability wheel spinning, from his lair, as pretend mayor, in that Chicago. He's the guy who came on TV and said that unless the Cubs have a 'world class stadium', we can't expect a 'world class team'.

I heard him say this with my own ears.

He is running the show, by zionist blackmail methods.

Because guns are a threat to those who are fighting everyday to strip sovereignty and meld a world government they will certainly control. There is no bottom in the barrel of political evil and greed.

You see, we're all crazies waiting for stage 2 of the your-body-is-ours technofascists.

Crazies, and by assimilation tactics, there will be a lot of 'em. Don't want a vacc?

Dam wel better, or you are going to jail.

(Or maybe to a world class detention center)

Oh, the net for the crazies will be huge, relying on stasi booster tips, being the easiest way for the weakest to survive. See that mean little face on the 55 year old? He is saying that you are a criminal if you resist a vaacination, or never visit a doctor. He means it. His eyes are tired, he has seen enough, and now he is going to bash out your knees because you thought you were healthy.

Oh, no. The fun never ends. I haven't the heart to draw up a proper outline, at the moment. The mods did not like my dream about obama, even when they were OK with the man who said 'let's get a rope' and the 9 stars it got. I guess a blank box below 'let's get a rope' means I must have said something racist, but I did not.

They will be using the state of Utah to artificially determine who is 'crazy' . It is at the roots of assimilation. I hope and pray I am preaching to the choir.


Just keep your eyes on the firemen that keep putting blankets over fires.

Here, there, everywhere.



# 87

theantediluvian

beezzer

theantediluvian

macman
reply to post by intrepid

 

Very simply the 2nd does not state anything about limiting the mentally ill, nor hunting nor anything else for that matter.

It doesn't say anything about individuals or offer a definition of "arms" either. Strictly speaking, the framers could at that point have only been referring to muskets, swords and the like since nothing else existed. It certainly doesn't say "any weapon ever to be created by man" either? Given your purposefully simplistic interpretation, the 2nd amendment could be used to justify ownership of nuclear weapons by individuals.

And the 1st Amendment says nothing about the internet.

Your point?

Invalid.

What? I was responding to this:

Very simply the 2nd does not state anything about limiting the mentally ill, nor hunting nor anything else for that matter.

I was making a point that the 2nd Amendment doesn't have any text about individuals or a description of what constitutes arms and that's why things are open to interpretation. You then jump in with "And the 1st Amendment says nothing about the internet." which actually supports MY POINT and then claim that you've somehow invalidated my point?

You can't use the internet to argue a 1st Amendment point on the 2nd Amendment because the founding fathers never mentioned the internet.

Enjoying the irony?

reply to post by theantediluvian

This is all a moot point because a) you're not going to be able to defend yourself against a tyrannical government's military with the weapons civilians have access to legally and b) there's absolutely nothing approaching popular support for any type of "ban on guns" anyway.

B is correct, and I agree. A, however, is a debatable point. Circumstances have a way of changing the military's perceived role should the need arise. No one knows if orders would be followed (or given) to fire on a mass of Americans with a legitimate beef that threatened but did not actively fire at this time. History says they would: Battle of Blair Mountain and Kent State come to mind. Times have changed and civilians could indeed gain access to serious weapons of war. It wouldn't be 30-30's and 12 gauge shotguns...or even AR 15 variants. Depending on the organization and leadership of such a militia, they could gain equal footing to the current military very easily including drones and gunships...if they have the pilots to use them. Add in a factor of a sympathetic base commander and you have a Dr. Strangelove type of situation within the country.

It is my deepest hope (and I honestly fear that it could) that such a thing would never happen. That there would never be such a disconnect that all communication broke down and an armed force would be necessary. But they say that even in the best of societies that the possibility of a revolution is only nine skipped meals in a row from happening. And there are going to be quite a few people skipping meals in the near future. Proposals such as these is really only poking the bear with a stick.

Logarock

intrptr
Gun control advocates think that the fewer guns there are "out there" the less likely that violent crime will occur.

They know that suddenly taking all guns away from the citizenry won't work. That would cause a huge ruckus. So they incrementally pass legislation that chips away at the right to own firearms a bit at a time.

I see them trying to make money from this. Once they have a national registry they could attempt to tax per gun like a yearly registration stamp for 25$ per gun.

You nailed it. Tax/confiscate by attrition/compile enemies list etc....

I had to star this. One star. I can't believe this.

I cannot believe that this is ignored until people have to actually pay the TAX. I would hazard a guess that the true reason for the rahm-taxes are overlooked?

It is like spiking a stock just before they dump it. You know, mad money, cramer, that sort of thing. BUY BUY BUY.

Every time they place another 'Sandy Hook' on the stage, they get another run on guns, and future revenues, and future psych prisoners. But it's all money running through their fingers because how do they track all of these sales for the registry?

And then finally, they make it all against the law, all so that tinkerbell doesn't have to think about "dodging gun battles on the streets...or bombs at the mall".

Suddenly you find that you are a fugitive, or you pay all your taxes on all your toys. Or you give some of it up. For your trouble, you are now subject to semi-annual house checks to make sure all the metal is 'properly stored'. If you declared nothing, you will get random searches, perfectly legal, since the Constitution experts said so. You gave consent, with your health care contract, or paycheck, or because you happen to reside in a country that some group wants to call home....

But taxation revenues are the least nefarious of what they have planned. Searches by satellite, street snitches, psych evaluations carried out by steroidal rapists with an AI and a badge.

Just trying to help.

# 88

2nd amendment didn't come out of the sky with angles. It's not carved to the stone. It is a right granted by society. It also never says anything about rights of using arms. Society thought it was reasonable to allow sportsman, collectors, hobbyist, self defense as a legit use of firearms. They also thought that tanks, nukes, bio weapons etc. reasonably dont belong to the hands of private citizens. If you really wish for your utopian "all guns for all peoples" society then your right is to vote people in who will implement that or move to a place that does so already.

reply to post by Spookybelle


This actually true... They can take your car anytime they wish if you are ever on the wrong side of the law. You are nothinf more than their licensed driver authorized to pilot their property.

reply to post by theantediluvian


You are very misinformed. The right may not be infringed... This is very specific. It doesnt say everybody but criminals or psychos can have arms. Also the founding fathers knew that technology would advance and firearms would also get better. It is asinine to believe that they would only want people having muskets while their government has fully automatic personal defense weapons. In fact, it is this sort of inequality they sought to defend us from.

reply to post by intrepid


Its a special kind of stupid who believes that, through legislation, people can control what criminals, who disregard law, do.

beezzer

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer

 

C'mon Beez. You're better than to play that totality BS. Reread that and you'll see what I'm saying. You may not like it but you'll see it. Can't have it both ways.

And if you've been following, my answer to gun crimes has been capital punishment for anyone using a weapon in the commission of a crime.

The answer IS NOT restricting freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

I have been saying the same thing for as long as I have been here. Nobody is listening though.

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer

 

Tell me how you control the access to guns to mentally disturbed individuals without checks?

I'll make a deal with you. You tell me how checks will prevent access to guns for mentally disturbed individuals, and I will tell you to use the same methods without the checks. I have seen hundreds of people who are not allowed to own guns with guns. It's called the black market! Therefore I resolve that anything short of a bullet to the head for those deemed to be mentally disturbed will not work period. ie: You buy a gun. It is registered. A thief steals the gun. Who has it now. Good question!

reply to post by colddeadhands


So you are saying it IS the guns that's the problem?

reply to post by intrepid


NO! I'm saying that laws won't stop anyone who wants to from killing. If the law required that all guns were removed then knives, pipes,chains,sticks and stones would be used. How many guns do you think are in prisons in the hands of prisoners? Does that stop killings in prison?

intrepid
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Uh huh and what about delusional people making weapons in their houses? I've been following this arms BS for the whole thing. The gun crowd says it's mental health issues. But by your definition you can't touch the sick. IT'S YOUR RIGHT. Can't have it both ways man.

There is an irony in the fact that, many of us do vehemently defend our right to bear arms, but the image of a citizen carrying a gun has been trashed by our media. The image of a person carrying a gun has been smeared, and now the majority views that person as a nutjob simply for the act of exercising their right.

What I am trying to get at is that our attitudes have shifted. These "crazy, lone gunman" types can get away with mass shootings in public places because the majority no longer carry any manner of weapon. We are not the republic that we once were. Our sense of responsibility is gone.

People like to use the crazies as a form of fear-mongering, but I guarentee that if we took Adam Lanza and dropped him off in Dodge City pre Civil War to execute his shooting, he would have been lucky to gain one victim. Regardless, he would have been gunned down, and his "spree" would have been cutshort extremely quickly.

Crazies having access to weapons would be a null point if we were still the Union we once were.

reply to post by colddeadhands


OK, so do what then? Nothing? And if you just happen to be killed, "Tough luck, dude"?