Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: All gun laws violate the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
    “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

    Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
    “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

    U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346
    If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.

    Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622
    “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

    Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

    Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28
    Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

    Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
    “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”


    It seems that in many supreme court rulings, we come across a precedent that could potentially be used to fight prosecution for owning weapons that the States or Fed feel should be illegal. In fact, I think that these clauses within the rulings prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as a common sense gun law, but rather, all gun laws are blatant attempts to take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

    Also, these rulings should also be able to be used to fight the fed in regards to the amount of ammo we have.

    Fight the State!

    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    I agree!!!! +100000


    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    I don't go quite so far as to say that ALL gun laws are unconstitutional--although certainly most of them are.

    Two points that I've been thinking about--

    #1. Laws that restrict mentally ill people from possessing weapons. I think that reasonable people may disagree about the degree of illness that would be allowable. However, I believe that the basic restriction is perfectly reasonable.
    Remember, 200 years ago the state of medicine was extremely primitive. Very little was known about how the body works. I've never read in depth about it, but I'm not sure if even the concept of mental illnesswas understood, at least in the modern sense. In addition, there was not as much dementia and related illnesses, simply because many people died before being old enough to be at risk for such things.

    #2. When the subject of unrestricted rights comes up, many anti's like to talk about "people who want a nuke in their garage." (Or B-2 bomber, etc.) I have read about the use and possession of weapons in Revolutionary times, and how new soldiers often arrived on the battlefield carrying their own muskets. However, I have never read an account of a soldier arriving on the battlefield with his own cannon. A cannon was not a personal weapon. It was a crewed weapon.
    Therefore, I would put this restriction--andONLY this restriction--on the types of weapons available for purchase: Anybody who passes the background check may purchase any weapon that can be easily operated and maintained by a single person.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    I don't go quite so far as to say that ALL gun laws are unconstitutional--although certainly most of them are.

    Two points that I've been thinking about--

    #1. Laws that restrict mentally ill people from possessing weapons. I think that reasonable people may disagree about the degree of illness that would be allowable. However, I believe that the basic restriction is perfectly reasonable.
    Remember, 200 years ago the state of medicine was extremely primitive. Very little was known about how the body works. I've never read in depth about it, but I'm not sure if even the concept of mental illnesswas understood, at least in the modern sense. In addition, there was not as much dementia and related illnesses, simply because many people died before being old enough to be at risk for such things.

    #2. When the subject of unrestricted rights comes up, many anti's like to talk about "people who want a nuke in their garage." (Or B-2 bomber, etc.) I have read about the use and possession of weapons in Revolutionary times, and how new soldiers often arrived on the battlefield carrying their own muskets. However, I have never read an account of a soldier arriving on the battlefield with his own cannon. A cannon was not a personal weapon. It was a crewed weapon.
    Therefore, I would put this restriction--andONLY this restriction--on the types of weapons available for purchase: Anybody who passes the background check may purchase any weapon that can be easily operated and maintained by a single person.
    #1 Who decides who is mentally ill and how ill?



    #2 You should check out the Dixie gun works catalog. You can own a cannon.Some cannons were purchased privately (or rather commisioned) by wealthy individuals early in the war. More over, if I want a tank , and I live in a free society, I should be able to have one so long as it's within my means to buy and i don't encroach anyone elses rights or property with it, otherwise it's not really a free society is it?


  5. #5
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    Flyer22 wrote:
    I don't go quite so far as to say that ALL gun laws are unconstitutional--although certainly most of them are.

    Two points that I've been thinking about--

    #1. Laws that restrict mentally ill people from possessing weapons. I think that reasonable people may disagree about the degree of illness that would be allowable. However, I believe that the basic restriction is perfectly reasonable.
    Remember, 200 years ago the state of medicine was extremely primitive. Very little was known about how the body works. I've never read in depth about it, but I'm not sure if even the concept of mental illnesswas understood, at least in the modern sense. In addition, there was not as much dementia and related illnesses, simply because many people died before being old enough to be at risk for such things.

    #2. When the subject of unrestricted rights comes up, many anti's like to talk about "people who want a nuke in their garage." (Or B-2 bomber, etc.) I have read about the use and possession of weapons in Revolutionary times, and how new soldiers often arrived on the battlefield carrying their own muskets. However, I have never read an account of a soldier arriving on the battlefield with his own cannon. A cannon was not a personal weapon. It was a crewed weapon.
    Therefore, I would put this restriction--andONLY this restriction--on the types of weapons available for purchase: Anybody who passes the background check may purchase any weapon that can be easily operated and maintained by a single person.
    #1 Who decides who is mentally ill and how ill?



    #2 You should check out the Dixie gun works catalog. You can own a cannon.Some cannons were purchased privately (or rather commisioned) by wealthy individuals early in the war. More over, if I want a tank , and I live in a free society, I should be able to have one so long as it's within my means to buy and i don't encroach anyone elses rights or property with it, otherwise it's not really a free society is it?
    First of all, if someone is mentally ill enough to be deemed unfit to own a gun... they're probably not safe around knives either. For that matter, they might not even be safe outside of an institution... that argument is specious and it is a very bad one to allow to grow since they may include mild depression or anxiety as a reason to bar you from owning a gun.

    As for owning a nuke... sure, let anyone own a nuke.... but making or owningthe fissile material can be made illegal... basically making the nuke an expensive TNT bomb.

    I believe there are civilians who own mini-guns, tanks, artillery and more.... I think there should be no restrictions on any of that. If you can afford it... you should be able to own it. If a civilian could pay for a B2 bomber... why shouldn't he be able to own it? Freedom is freedom... and there are no degrees of freedom acceptable to trample.

    If a person commits a crime against another person or persons that results in death... they should never be able to own weapons again if it can be proved they did not actin self defense. Notice how I phrased that? We do not have to prove it was self defense, the prosecution has to prove it was NOT self defense and the benefit of the doubt must always go to the individual.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    The extremist people don't seem to grasp the fact that the 2A deals with the right to KEEP and to BEAR. Most gun laws involve PURCHASING.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    The extremist people don't seem to grasp the fact that the 2A deals with the right to KEEP and to BEAR. Most gun laws involve PURCHASING.
    That's a silly argument as you cannot KEEP and BEAR if you cannot PURCHASE. And restricting the purchase in any way is INFRINGING....

    (are we still using CAPITALS?)
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The extremist people don't seem to grasp the fact that the 2A deals with the right to KEEP and to BEAR. Most gun laws involve PURCHASING.
    That's a silly argument as you cannot KEEP and BEAR if you cannot PURCHASE. And restricting the purchase in any way is INFRINGING....

    (are we still using CAPITALS?)
    Whoever said anything about not being able to purchase? Just because it's a pain in the ass doesn't mean you don't get the gun anyway.

    KEEP and BEAR

    I see nothing about purchase convenience, availability, hassle, etc.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The extremist people don't seem to grasp the fact that the 2A deals with the right to KEEP and to BEAR. Most gun laws involve PURCHASING.
    That's a silly argument as you cannot KEEP and BEAR if you cannot PURCHASE. And restricting the purchase in any way is INFRINGING....

    (are we still using CAPITALS?)
    Whoever said anything about not being able to purchase? Just because it's a pain in the ass doesn't mean you don't get the gun anyway.

    KEEP and BEAR

    I see nothing about purchase convenience, availability, hassle, etc.
    You forgot how to read did you?

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

    or if you don't like a ruling from the supreme court... how about...

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    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.

    lib⋅er⋅ty  /ˈlɪbərti/–noun, plural -ties.
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
    3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.


    Unalienable (inalienable) - Adjective
    S: (adj) inalienable, unalienable (incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another) "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

    in⋅fringe  /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ verb, -fringed, -fring⋅ing.
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    –verb (used without object)
    2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Origin:
    1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break

    So what part of this do you not seem to understand? I've argued with you before about freedom and it seems quite clear now that you are not a friend to Liberty. You think it is all a privilege and treat it as such. Licenses or permitsimply that we're granted permission to do something... that's like saying we need a permit to breathe.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The extremist people don't seem to grasp the fact that the 2A deals with the right to KEEP and to BEAR. Most gun laws involve PURCHASING.
    That's a silly argument as you cannot KEEP and BEAR if you cannot PURCHASE. And restricting the purchase in any way is INFRINGING....

    (are we still using CAPITALS?)
    Whoever said anything about not being able to purchase? Just because it's a pain in the ass doesn't mean you don't get the gun anyway.

    KEEP and BEAR

    I see nothing about purchase convenience, availability, hassle, etc.
    You forgot how to read did you?

    None of that supports your case.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    None of that supports your case.
    Eitheryou have an inability to understand the English language, or you'repurposelyobfuscating the clear facts presented.

    Everything I've presented supports my case without any reservations or doubt. The only doubt anyone could have would come from someone who is a Statist and desires strict controls over people and everything they have and everything they do.

    What are you even doing here at this site? You obviously don't support freedom and you obviously don't support the Constitution or our Republic. Why would you waste your time here?

    Every single case presented above supports my case... the Declaration of Independence supports my case... the Constitution supports my case... what were you reading? The Communist Manifesto?
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Murder should be legal. See...


    lib⋅er⋅ty  /ˈlɪbərti/–noun, plural -ties.
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
    3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.


    Unalienable (inalienable) - Adjective
    S: (adj) inalienable, unalienable (incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another) "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

    in⋅fringe  /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ verb, -fringed, -fring⋅ing.
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    –verb (used without object)
    2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Origin:
    1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break


    Liberty. That means I should be free to do whatever I want, right?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Murder should be legal. See...


    lib⋅er⋅ty  /ˈlɪbərti/–noun, plural -ties.
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
    3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.


    Unalienable (inalienable) - Adjective
    S: (adj) inalienable, unalienable (incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another) "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

    in⋅fringe  /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ verb, -fringed, -fring⋅ing.
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    –verb (used without object)
    2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Origin:
    1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break


    Liberty. That means I should be free to do whatever I want, right?
    Are you purposely being stupid?

    First, if you leave out the Declaration of Independence, you could possibly come to that conclusion.... i.e. Liberty by itself is quite possibly destructive... however;

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Murder violates equal liberty... We're also protected in our persons and property by the Constitution... not just from government, but each other. Learn to read man, you're an embarrassment to the other side.

    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Murder should be legal. See...


    lib⋅er⋅ty  /ˈlɪbərti/–noun, plural -ties.
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
    3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.


    Unalienable (inalienable) - Adjective
    S: (adj) inalienable, unalienable (incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another) "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

    in⋅fringe  /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ verb, -fringed, -fring⋅ing.
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    –verb (used without object)
    2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Origin:
    1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break


    Liberty. That means I should be free to do whatever I want, right?
    Are you purposely being stupid?

    First, if you leave out the Declaration of Independence, you could possibly come to that conclusion.... i.e. Liberty by itself is quite possibly destructive... however;

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Murder violates equal liberty... We're also protected in our persons and property by the Constitution... not just from government, but each other. Learn to read man, you're an embarrassment to the other side.


    The point I'm making, which,no surprise, went miles over your head, is that you're leaving out mountains of SPECIFICprecedent and case law, other laws, etc etc etc.

    You're taking YOUR interpretation of the 2A, applying the magic of "liberty" and someultra-vague, out of contextcase quotes,and you think it proves your point. It proves nothing.

  15. #15
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez, I don't personally see how restricting the sale or purchase of a firearm could in any way be seen as reasonable.

    At the same time, I could see your argument being accepted, by antis.

    But either way, not only is the purchase of many firearms regulated, or illegal, so is the manufacturing without a permit from the government.

    Also, the import requires a license. All of this is IMHO blatant infringement. And I hold the position that regulating the sale of the firearms is merely a springboard for more regulation . And if you can't buy it, how in the world are you going to get it?

    Anywho, I have a friend who owns a tank from WWII. An American one, I believe a Sherman. Perfectly legal, I am not sure if he has ever fired the cannon, but one could easily fire it with a little knowledge.

    It is disgusting to me that we can't have full auto weapons but we can have tanks. But I love that we can have tanks.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Murder should be legal. See...


    lib⋅er⋅ty  /ˈlɪbərti/–noun, plural -ties.
    You're taking YOUR interpretation of the 2A, applying the magic of "liberty" and someultra-vague, out of contextcase quotes,and you think it proves your point. It proves nothing.
    AWDsylez ...

    How do you suggest to prove this premise ? What do you have to say to be helpful and constuctive ? :quirky:quirky:quirky:quirky

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    AWDstylez, I don't personally see how restricting the sale or purchase of a firearm could in any way be seen as reasonable.

    At the same time, I could see your argument being accepted, by antis.

    But either way, not only is the purchase of many firearms regulated, or illegal, so is the manufacturing without a permit from the government.

    Also, the import requires a license. All of this is IMHO blatant infringement. And I hold the position that regulating the sale of the firearms is merely a springboard for more regulation . And if you can't buy it, how in the world are you going to get it?

    Anywho, I have a friend who owns a tank from WWII. An American one, I believe a Sherman. Perfectly legal, I am not sure if he has ever fired the cannon, but one could easily fire it with a little knowledge.

    It is disgusting to me that we can't have full auto weapons but we can have tanks. But I love that we can have tanks.


    What I'm saying is that you're ignoring all the court decisions that UPHOLD the restrictions. The founding fathers, that everyone adores so much, gave us the court system to determine what laws do and do not say. For the most part, they disagree with you. Are you wrong or are they wrong? If they're wrong, what do you base that off of? Are you a lawyer? You'll scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in the antis' favor and the anti's will scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in our favor. In reality, your both "interpreting" (and I use that term loosely,because neither of you are qualified or learned enough to interpret anything)the laws based on your own opinions and biases.

    You're armchair ref'ing the Super Bowl and the only football experience you have is playing Madden '08.

  18. #18
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    AWDstylez, I don't personally see how restricting the sale or purchase of a firearm could in any way be seen as reasonable.

    At the same time, I could see your argument being accepted, by antis.

    But either way, not only is the purchase of many firearms regulated, or illegal, so is the manufacturing without a permit from the government.

    Also, the import requires a license. All of this is IMHO blatant infringement. And I hold the position that regulating the sale of the firearms is merely a springboard for more regulation . And if you can't buy it, how in the world are you going to get it?

    Anywho, I have a friend who owns a tank from WWII. An American one, I believe a Sherman. Perfectly legal, I am not sure if he has ever fired the cannon, but one could easily fire it with a little knowledge.

    It is disgusting to me that we can't have full auto weapons but we can have tanks. But I love that we can have tanks.


    What I'm saying is that you're ignoring all the court decisions that UPHOLD the restrictions. The founding fathers, that everyone adores so much, gave us the court system to determine what laws do and do not say. For the most part, they disagree with you. Are you wrong or are they wrong? If they're wrong, what do you base that off of? Are you a lawyer? You'll scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in the antis' favor and the anti's will scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in our favor. In reality, your both "interpreting" (and I use that term loosely,because neither of you are qualified or learned enough to interpret anything)the laws based on your own opinions and biases.

    You're armchair ref'ing the Super Bowl and the only football experience you have is playing Madden '08.
    I'm not ignoring anything, merely giving my opinion.

    Point out where I scream and cry anything. Cite to source would be appreciated.

    Are not the justices on the bench "interpreting" based on their own opinions and biases?(sp?)

    I base my opinion that restricting the purchase of a firearm is unconstitutional based on my own opinions and biases, and actively convey my opinions on these issues to my congressman, senator, etc because I am trying to change the country to work the way that I believe the founding fathers meant it to.

    Is not this the basis for our government, of the people by the people for the people?

    Where exactly is the harm? It is the way it's supposed to work after all.

    How bout you calm down a little there stylez. What is my opinion worth to you? About as much as you paid for it. Free.

    Man, you getting all upset over my opnion is like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    AWDstylez, I don't personally see how restricting the sale or purchase of a firearm could in any way be seen as reasonable.

    At the same time, I could see your argument being accepted, by antis.

    But either way, not only is the purchase of many firearms regulated, or illegal, so is the manufacturing without a permit from the government.

    Also, the import requires a license. All of this is IMHO blatant infringement. And I hold the position that regulating the sale of the firearms is merely a springboard for more regulation . And if you can't buy it, how in the world are you going to get it?

    Anywho, I have a friend who owns a tank from WWII. An American one, I believe a Sherman. Perfectly legal, I am not sure if he has ever fired the cannon, but one could easily fire it with a little knowledge.

    It is disgusting to me that we can't have full auto weapons but we can have tanks. But I love that we can have tanks.


    What I'm saying is that you're ignoring all the court decisions that UPHOLD the restrictions. The founding fathers, that everyone adores so much, gave us the court system to determine what laws do and do not say. For the most part, they disagree with you. Are you wrong or are they wrong? If they're wrong, what do you base that off of? Are you a lawyer? You'll scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in the antis' favor and the anti's will scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in our favor. In reality, your both "interpreting" (and I use that term loosely,because neither of you are qualified or learned enough to interpret anything)the laws based on your own opinions and biases.

    You're armchair ref'ing the Super Bowl and the only football experience you have is playing Madden '08.
    I'm not ignoring anything, merely giving my opinion.

    Point out where I scream and cry anything. Cite to source would be appreciated.

    Are not the justices on the bench "interpreting" based on their own opinions and biases?(sp?)

    I base my opinion that restricting the purchase of a firearm is unconstitutional based on my own opinions and biases, and actively convey my opinions on these issues to my congressman, senator, etc because I am trying to change the country to work the way that I believe the founding fathers meant it to.

    Is not this the basis for our government, of the people by the people for the people?

    Where exactly is the harm? It is the way it's supposed to work after all.

    How bout you calm down a little there stylez. What is my opinion worth to you? About as much as you paid for it. Free.

    Man, you getting all upset over my opnion is like looking a gift horse in the mouth.


    I wasn't actually refering to you, when I said "you," but rather washington and the rest of the people that like to argue that they know the law better than the justices do. I tend tointerchange "you" as just an abstract person and you, personally.

    The rest of what you said, I really have no problem with. That is how the country is supposed to work. What people like washington don't get, is that the opinion they're pushing is just that -opinion. They seem to think they're blessed from heaven as the only ones that are right. The reality is that everyone in this country wants this country to function to their own liking, and that's fine. That's what we have a representative system for. If you don't like, change it. Argue for your opinion, but don't ever claim it's the absolute truth.

  20. #20
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    +100 stylez

    Thanks for the clarification.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    I wasn't actually refering to you, when I said "you," but rather washington and the rest of the people that like to argue that they know the law better than the justices do.
    Justices are human... and they also have agendas.... making their opinion no more valid than anyone elses.... however, the written word and the meanings of words cannot be changed for the sake of convenience.

    All instances of judges upholding unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional in and of themselves and therefore invalid.

    But give ONE such an instance to bolster your claim.... how about two or three! The problem with your claims is that they do NOT agree with our supreme law of the land... the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Mine do!
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Mine do!


    Says... who, other than you?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    What I'm saying is that you're ignoring all the court decisions that UPHOLD the restrictions. The founding fathers, that everyone adores so much, gave us the court system to determine what laws do and do not say. For the most part, they disagree with you. Are you wrong or are they wrong? If they're wrong, what do you base that off of? Are you a lawyer? You'll scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in the antis' favor and the anti's will scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in our favor. In reality, your both "interpreting" (and I use that term loosely,because neither of you are qualified or learned enough to interpret anything)the laws based on your own opinions and biases.

    You're armchair ref'ing the Super Bowl and the only football experience you have is playing Madden '08.
    Spoken like a true Statist and anti-Liberty and anti-Freedom Socialist. I've said it before and I'll say it again... those who say these matters are complex and therefore have no definite answer only say this so they can bypass the truth in favor of their own power and control. They say things like "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is." If the term Liberty and the phrase "shall not infringe"are bothinconvenient,you and theyignore it or say it's more complex that it really is. You and those like you are enemies of Liberty and enemies of Freedom and you will be on the wrong side of the next Civil War.... and you will be the cause of it.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Mine do!
    Says... who, other than you?
    I don't think anyone except the other Statists on these boards agree with you. Not only that, but the supreme court majority opinions from which the clauses I extracted come from also prove that more people than just me believe these truths.

    What is more... from the 1980s to now, we've been beating people like you back at every turn and wrenching our freedom out of your claws one defeated unconstitutional statute, ordinance and law at a time. Just look at the maps of States in the 80s that would not allow anyone to carry and look at them now... a huge difference and huge strides to my side of the argument.

    The 10th Amendment movements within the States also have more people within them who also agree with me and I would say that there are more and more people speaking out who have great authority on the subject who also agree with me.

    You have yet to cite one case that has not been overturned that agrees with you. Oh, and if you think using the Heller vs DC case majority opinion as your proof... think again. The wording used by the justices outlining regulationis already being challenged as infringement on the RTKBA. Cite me the countless rulings that agree with you that still have any validity at all.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  25. #25
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Mine do!
    Says... who, other than you?
    I don't think anyone except the other Statists on these boards agree with you.
    Hey now guy, although rarely, I do agree with stylez on some things.

    This comment offends me.

    Generalizations are bad mmmkay?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •