|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: koods]
#21936390 - 07/13/15 08:33 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
nooneman said: It's in the constitution. We have a constitutional right to own guns. Until and unless that right is removed from the constitution, all gun control is unconstitutional. I realize the courts don't 100% side with me on this, but this is how I feel.
No court has ever ruled that the second amendment bars the government from regulating gun ownership.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon"
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: koods]
#21936402 - 07/13/15 08:39 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Acaterpillar said: What annoys me is the people who assume our right to bare arms is for hunting. We are entitled to military grade weapons in order to combat a tyrannical government should the circumstance arise.
Only a radical minority think the people are entitled to own sophisticated military weaponry. Even Scalia has said it is absurd to think that the second amendment's modern purpose is to keep the federal government in check because military firepower is just overwhelming.
You're hyperbole always bites you in the ass. Perhaps a hyperbole-free method of communicating would suit you better.
Lewis vs. US
[Footnote 8]
These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 307 U. S. 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm t.hat does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that § 1202(a)(1), § 922(g), and § 922(a)(6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
TL:DR version...The Second was determined to not protect sawed-off shotguns because the justices decided they WERE NOT in common use by the military.
In simple terms for the simple... military style weapons are covered by the second.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Lived_1978-2043 said: I wish gov would pay people monthly $400 for choosing an option to wave their 2nd amendment right. $$$ helps all.
I wouldn't waive it for 400 million.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: my3rdeye] 1
#21936406 - 07/13/15 08:40 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
my3rdeye said: I also oppose self defense with a fire arm under almost all circumstances. Mainly since its a made up thing that doesn't really happen. Keeping a gun under the pillow just endangers your kids it doesn't improve your safety.
LOL are you completely blind? Self defense with a fire arm most certainly happens and is not a made up thing. People get mugged, people get robbed, homes get broken into.
Ffs, i just learned a couple weeks ago one of my old friends had their home broken into and his sister tied up, he chased them out with a shotgun.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: koods]
#21936410 - 07/13/15 08:42 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: No court has ever ruled that the second amendment bars the government from regulating gun ownership.
For those who respect the written word, it's inevitable.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
r00tuuu123
Now I'm just really piseed



Registered: 04/20/12
Posts: 8,507
Loc: I'll be there in a minute
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: 404]
#21936413 - 07/13/15 08:43 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
nooneman said: It's in the constitution. We have a constitutional right to own guns. Until and unless that right is removed from the constitution, all gun control is unconstitutional. I realize the courts don't 100% side with me on this, but this is how I feel.
No court has ever ruled that the second amendment bars the government from regulating gun ownership.
Well then we need to overhaul the judicial system. And the atf is just a governmental agengcy not congress for one. If you think it's ok to take away fundemental rights of citizens,well I guess that would be on you.
--------------------
Please report me to a Mod for hurting your punk ass hippie feelings And all time Champion thread killer.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: r00tuuu123] 3
#21936419 - 07/13/15 08:44 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
koods only cares about rights HE favors.
Everyone else can go fuck themselves.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#21936426 - 07/13/15 08:46 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It should be noted you can basically own a tank with a 200$ tax stamp the price of the tank aside.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: 404]
#21936436 - 07/13/15 08:51 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
They are required to have the firing mechanism deactivated.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#21936442 - 07/13/15 08:53 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised, but it's still a tank. Are you sure though? I think that kind of weapon pretty much falls under the "other" category on the nfa form
|
Mr.GuessWork
Stranger

Registered: 03/30/13
Posts: 4,563
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#21936446 - 07/13/15 08:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"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"
The idea behind the public having military equipment isn't so we can defend ourselves from the federal government. It's so the states don't have to rely on the Federal government for their own protection from foreign attacks (EDIT: A militia could also defend against domestic attacks too, I guess.). The word Arms in the amendment certainly refers to military armaments. A reasonable interpretation of it would include the possession of military tanks, planes, and ships for various types of militias. Nukes are probably a bit out of scope.
States are allowed to empower their citizens for the defense of the state. It's among the many reasons that we shouldn't be fucked with as a nation. Here's an article that claims that the number of deer hunters in Wisconsin would weigh in as the 8th largest army in the world (It's close enough to accurate to make the point, so don't nitpick):
http://www.newberlinnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/112548274.html
Hunting and other gun sports can be thought of as a kind of light militia practice.
Edited by Mr.GuessWork (07/13/15 08:57 AM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: 404]
#21936455 - 07/13/15 08:58 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
404 said: I wouldn't be surprised, but it's still a tank. Are you sure though? I think that kind of weapon pretty much falls under the "other" category on the nfa form
it's not a tank without te ability to fire, it's just an armored vehicle
"other" is classified as grenades, RPGs and the like
|
Mr.GuessWork
Stranger

Registered: 03/30/13
Posts: 4,563
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: Mr.GuessWork]
#21936463 - 07/13/15 09:00 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I should have added that personal ownership of military weapons for personal use or private use is probably not protected by the second amendment if the use is not for the sake of organised public protection.
Edited by Mr.GuessWork (07/13/15 09:03 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: 404]
#21936471 - 07/13/15 09:05 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
404 said: Are you sure though?
It appears we are both correct (though you more so), depending on where the tank comes from.
Quote:
"Every kid wants a toy tank," says Phil Josephs, who imported a Chieftain to catch the eyes of passersby at his Army-Navy store on a busy road in Delran, N.J. He found the antiaircraft gun he had outside before just didn't do the trick. Would-be tank importers must prove the weapons have been disabled.
Quote:
A tank in the U.S. can have operational guns, if the owner has a federal Destructive Device permit, and state laws don't prohibit it. The permit costs $200, and the applicant must swear he hasn't been a "fugitive from justice," "adjudicated mentally defective" or convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." A local law-enforcement official, usually a sheriff or police chief, has to sign off on the application.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578302480951570270
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: Mr.GuessWork]
#21936472 - 07/13/15 09:05 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you'd be wrong to a point. the public is allowed to own NFA weapons which are small arms, that includes anti tank rockets and many other explosive devices
|
California
A E S T H E T I C S A T A N


Registered: 12/27/04
Posts: 72,118
Loc: H A U N T E D H O U S E
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#21936478 - 07/13/15 09:06 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, but what would you do with an anti tank rocket or other explosive devices?
|
Mr.GuessWork
Stranger

Registered: 03/30/13
Posts: 4,563
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: California]
#21936482 - 07/13/15 09:08 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You would leave it in a gun safe. It's like a militia. If everything is working properly, then you never need it.
|
r00tuuu123
Now I'm just really piseed



Registered: 04/20/12
Posts: 8,507
Loc: I'll be there in a minute
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: Mr.GuessWork]
#21936487 - 07/13/15 09:09 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.GuessWork said: "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"
The idea behind the public having military equipment isn't so we can defend ourselves from the federal government. It's so the states don't have to rely on the government for their own protection from foreign attacks. The word Arms in the amendment certainly refers to military armaments. A reasonable interpretation of it would include the possession of military tanks, planes, and ships for various types of militias. Nukes are probably a bit out of scope.
States are allowed to empower their citizens for the defense of the state. It's among the many reasons that we shouldn't be fucked with as a nation. Here's an article that claims that the number of deer hunters in Wisconsin would weigh in as the 8th largest army in the world (It's close enough to accurate to make the point, so don't nitpick):
http://www.newberlinnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/112548274.html
Hunting and other gun sports can be thought of as a kind of light militia practice.
Well at least you get it Pennsylvania has at least the 3rd largest army in the world at least in deer season. Ya gotta love how these asshats wanna give up their rights to a government that they dis agree with and don't have the forsight to understand that the right to keep and bear arms and have a well regulated militia that protect those very rights and yes thos words were Penned incase the government gets out of hand. Gotta love it. "I want weed Legal well to bad sucker you didn't want guns so we (the government) are going to imprison you for saying so. :buahaha: Sould have kept those guns bitch.
--------------------
Please report me to a Mod for hurting your punk ass hippie feelings And all time Champion thread killer.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: Mr.GuessWork]
#21936495 - 07/13/15 09:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.GuessWork said: "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"
The idea behind the public having military equipment isn't so we can defend ourselves from the federal government. It's so the states don't have to rely on the Federal government for their own protection from foreign attacks (EDIT: A militia could also defend against domestic attacks too, I guess.). The word Arms in the amendment certainly refers to military armaments. A reasonable interpretation of it would include the possession of military tanks, planes, and ships for various types of militias. Nukes are probably a bit out of scope.
States are allowed to empower their citizens for the defense of the state. It's among the many reasons that we shouldn't be fucked with as a nation. Here's an article that claims that the number of deer hunters in Wisconsin would weigh in as the 8th largest army in the world (It's close enough to accurate to make the point, so don't nitpick):
http://www.newberlinnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/112548274.html
Hunting and other gun sports can be thought of as a kind of light militia practice.
Perhaps some reading is in order to correct your lack of knowledge.
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
I could go on but unless you're being deliberately obtuse, there's more than sufficient evidence available.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Guns control, where do you stand? [Re: California] 3
#21936524 - 07/13/15 09:20 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
California said: Yeah, but what would you do with an anti tank rocket or other explosive devices?
what the fuck ever I felt like doing with it
|
|