|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
The 2nd amendment is ambiguous which I imagine was on purpose. All that our elected officials can do regardless of their political affiliation , is interpret it and base laws on that interpretation. Its then up to the supreme court to determine whether those laws are constitutional. Thats an oversimplification but I don't claim any expertise in constitutional law. I am not in favor of an assault weapons ban for the simple reason that it won't accomplish anything and it will simply cause them to go after something else but the reality is that the supreme court will not deem it unconstitutional. The last one wasn't found to be unconstitutional but it had no teeth. It was purely cosmetic. You could go to the gun show, buy a sporterized ak, go to the next table and buy an ak stock set, and then go to the next table and buy all of the 30 rd mags and 75 rd drum mags you wanted. What’s ambiguous about this? 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." Sounds pretty ambiguous to me. Does this mean I can own a nuclear weapon or at least a small dirty bomb? Doesn't say the government can't force you to purchase a very expensive license and maybe put an outrageously expensive tax on them so no one can afford them. It does not say the government can't force you to register them. For the recod .............this idiot is a damnyankee. Carry on. [/quote] How dare you!!!! . I was born and raised in TN. You are from New Hampshire. How is that even a state? You should be annexed by Maine. At least they have more than 100 yds of coast line.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
Yeah only a yankee would get so butt hurt about being called a yankee.
Poor yankee Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
You haven’t won anything it’s the internet guy!
You have proven that you have no spine, you’ll sit and watch your fellow Americans battle it out for your freedoms or lack thereof and you’ll waltz in to the victory party whoever the victor.
You and only you have to live with your decisions, just like the rest of us. I’ll sleep well, I’m sure you will too given your MO at every point in your life. You mean watch you battle over your delusional fantasies. No thanks. I would rather watch the bachelorette. Those people are just too darned attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686 |
Poor Jim's upset because he went to a teaparty rally mistakenly thinking he'd get teabagged.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
You’d watch on CNN your words not mine.
Can you even be honest about what you would do while you are being a chickenschitt?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
Yeah only a yankee would get so butt hurt about being called a yankee.
Poor yankee Jim You don't list where you are from. Too embarrassed to admit you are from California? I bet you have an autograph book with Diane Feinstein's and Nancy Pelosi's signature in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
You’d watch on CNN your words not mine.
Can you even be honest about what you would do while you are being a chickenschitt? You are right. I would probably be watching that gay jesus thing on netflix.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686 |
Yeah only a yankee would get so butt hurt about being called a yankee.
Poor yankee Jim You don't list where you are from. Too embarrassed to admit you are from California? I bet you have an autograph book with Diane Feinstein's and Nancy Pelosi's signature in it. I bet pelosi has an autograph book with your signature in it. Pricks like you are the heroes of the anti-gun crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,584
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,584 |
Unless you are a supreme court justice with a background in constitutional law, you can't actually say that you have the constitutional right to own an ar15.
Well, let's see what some Supreme Court justices DID have to say: Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” page 7 United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. page 2 As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. page 56 All quotes from DC v Heller [emphasis added] So let's see. Is an AR 15 a "weapon of offence". Yes. Is an AR15 "in common use for lawful purposes" Yes, it's the most popular type of rifle in the country. Is an AR15 a member of a class of arms chosen by American society for lawful purposes? Yes. So, yes, you do have a constitutional right to own an AR15. Period. They took away our right to own a fully automatic firearm without having a federal license to own it. If that is ok then why not do the same with the ar15? Because an AR15 is unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes. Full automatic is a more complicated question. By the way, the constitution was written so that it could be changed. Yes it was. There's a strict procedure to do it. The Democrats don't have the necessary support to do it while following the procedure, so they are trying every possible way to subvert the Second Amendment without going through the procedure. Gutting the Second Amendment would be a horrible thing, but changing the Constiturion without going through the proper procedure is even worse. You lost this argument almost 30 years ago when they didn't throw out the first assault weapons ban. There are existing local assault weapons bans and every time someone tries t get them declared unconstitutional, it gets thrown out. It just happened in Illinois back in August. Allow me to quote you: "Unless you are a supreme court justice with a background in constitutional law, you can't actually say that you have the constitutional right to own an ar15." You certainly have no business arguing constitutional law if you actually believe that because the Supreme Court doesn't hear a case means they've ruled on it one way or another. For every case SCOTUS hears, they turn down 99. I quoted the Heller test for you, direct from the Supreme Court. How about actually responding to the argument instead of this evasive BS?
Last edited by natman; 12/26/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
Poor Jim's upset because he went to a teaparty rally mistakenly thinking he'd get teabagged. They are getting better. I am a little amazed that you teabaggers would bring that up seeing as you had to change the name freedom caucus because of the ridicule.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
Easy yankee Jim your fantasy need not apply to my reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686 |
Poor Jim's upset because he went to a teaparty rally mistakenly thinking he'd get teabagged. They are getting better. I am a little amazed that you teabaggers would bring that up seeing as you had to change the name freedom caucus because of the ridicule. Now you're showing your true colors.... Another paid troll. Go back to Democraticunderground with rest of the sensitive liberal [bleep].
Last edited by jackmountain; 12/26/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
Unless you are a supreme court justice with a background in constitutional law, you can't actually say that you have the constitutional right to own an ar15.
Well, let's see what some Supreme Court justices DID have to say: Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” page 7 United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. page 2 As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. page 56 All quotes from DC v Heller [emphasis added] So let's see. Is an AR 15 a "weapon of offence". Yes. Is an AR15 "in common use for lawful purposes" Yes, it's the most popular type of rifle in the country. Is an AR15 a member of a class of arms chosen by American society for lawful purposes? Yes. So, yes, you do have a constitutional right to own an AR15. Period. They took away our right to own a fully automatic firearm without having a federal license to own it. If that is ok then why not do the same with the ar15? Because an AR15 is unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes. Full automatic is a more complicated question. By the way, the constitution was written so that it could be changed. Yes it was. There's a strict procedure to do it. The Democrats don't have the necessary support to do it while following the procedure, so they are trying every possible way to subvert the Second Amendment without going through the procedure. Gutting the Second Amendment would be a horrible thing, but changing the Constiturion without going through the proper procedure is even worse. You lost this argument almost 30 years ago when they didn't throw out the first assault weapons ban. There are existing local assault weapons bans and every time someone tries t get them declared unconstitutional, it gets thrown out. It just happened in Illinois back in August. Allow me to quote you: "Unless you are a supreme court justice with a background in constitutional law, you can't actually say that you have the constitutional right to own an ar15." You certainly have no business arguing constitutional law if you actually believe that the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't hear a case means they've ruled on it one way or another. For every case SCOTUS hears, they turn down 99. I quoted the Heller test for you, direct from the Supreme Court. How about actually responding to the argument instead of this BS? If they never hear it then it will never be declared unconstitutional which means it will remain law. Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
Poor Jim's upset because he went to a teaparty rally mistakenly thinking he'd get teabagged. They are getting better. I am a little amazed that you teabaggers would bring that up seeing as you had to change the name freedom caucus because of the ridicule. Now you're showing your true colors.... Another paid troll. Keep working at it. You obviously did not have any friends growing up. There is hope for you. All is not lost. When you throw an insult at someone, unless its the mother of all insults you need to expect a rebuttal. You are obviously new to this so it maybe advisable to have a followup rebuttal ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Poor Jim's upset because he went to a teaparty rally mistakenly thinking he'd get teabagged. They are getting better. I am a little amazed that you teabaggers would bring that up seeing as you had to change the name freedom caucus because of the ridicule. Now you're showing your true colors.... Another paid troll. Keep working at it. You obviously did not have any friends growing up. There is hope for you. All is not lost. When you throw an insult at someone, unless its the mother of all insults you need to expect a rebuttal. You are obviously new to this so it maybe advisable to have a followup rebuttal ready. So as a paid and long-embedded troll you are used to it? Congrats?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 2,386
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 2,386 |
Some crook in a robe will NOT make my property disappear with an opinion. Which will be a serious problem for thugs who attempt to steal same. And for those who support such action. Including “Tories”, at other times referred to as collaborators or quislings.
The constitution simply enumerates for the State(because the State is so stupid it needs that) some of the rights held by citizens. It does not confer rights, nor does the State. I say what I can possess. That is my right, and only limited by my willingness and ability to defend it. Which is considerable. Men confer privileges to weaker men who accept such. Rights are held by men strong enough to claim them and hold them against those who would argue the point. It is becoming somewhat clear who is what here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686 |
I don't need anyone to tell me what my inalienable rights are. By definition they are "unable to be taken or given away by the possessor" I also don't need any court to define the 2nd amendment for me. "Shall not be infringed" is plainly clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686 |
Poor Jim's upset because he went to a teaparty rally mistakenly thinking he'd get teabagged. They are getting better. I am a little amazed that you teabaggers would bring that up seeing as you had to change the name freedom caucus because of the ridicule. Now you're showing your true colors.... Another paid troll. Keep working at it. You obviously did not have any friends growing up. There is hope for you. All is not lost. When you throw an insult at someone, unless its the mother of all insults you need to expect a rebuttal. You are obviously new to this so it maybe advisable to have a followup rebuttal ready. Love when you dipschit commie trolls get exposed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859 |
You lost this argument almost 30 years ago when they didn't throw out the first assault weapons ban.
You lost the argument 500 years ago when the Colonists set foot on these shores, and were LEGALLY able to "BEAR ARMS" without the government having ANY means of control or say so about it. You are TWO STOOPUD ™ to figure that out though. Go read my article, and educate yourself, you Commie. https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...econd-amendment-broken-down#Post12150689
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
– DocRocket (In reference to ElkSlayer91)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,935
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,935 |
The 2nd amendment is ambiguous which I imagine was on purpose. All that our elected officials can do regardless of their political affiliation , is interpret it and base laws on that interpretation. Its then up to the supreme court to determine whether those laws are constitutional. Thats an oversimplification but I don't claim any expertise in constitutional law. I am not in favor of an assault weapons ban for the simple reason that it won't accomplish anything and it will simply cause them to go after something else but the reality is that the supreme court will not deem it unconstitutional. The last one wasn't found to be unconstitutional but it had no teeth. It was purely cosmetic. You could go to the gun show, buy a sporterized ak, go to the next table and buy an ak stock set, and then go to the next table and buy all of the 30 rd mags and 75 rd drum mags you wanted. What’s ambiguous about this? 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." Sounds pretty ambiguous to me. Does this mean I can own a nuclear weapon or at least a small dirty bomb? Doesn't say the government can't force you to purchase a very expensive license and maybe put an outrageously expensive tax on them so no one can afford them. It does not say the government can't force you to register them. For the recod .............this idiot is a damnyankee. Carry on. . I was born and raised in TN. You are from New Hampshire. How is that even a state? You should be annexed by Maine. At least they have more than 100 yds of coast line. [/quote] If that isn’t a burst of estrogen......
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
58 members (14idaho, 3dtestify, 6mmCreedmoor, 10gaugemag, 406_SBC, 11 invisible),
1,654
guests, and
755
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,387
Posts18,469,726
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
