Marine To feinstein: I Will Not Register My Weapons

[fskimospy]

Go fishing somewhere else....nice try on your part. I believe in the basis of law in this country the Constitution. Really simple.

And you say this bill violates it. All I asked was how, which shouldn't be hard for you to tell us.

 

[HumblePie]

That's what I thought.

Angry for no reason.

Incorrect.

Irish.

 

[Incorruptible]

I'm not diving down this rabbit hole...I'm tired. It's an open ended question and I think you know the answer.

Read the Constitution. The second amendment is clear. Her bill is violating that right.

Good point, Most of these bills are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment and the politicians know this

 

[exdeath]

But her constituents are the people she was elected to represent. Why are you upset about an elected representative representing the wishes of her constituents?

I live in AZ. They live in CA. They can fuck off and stay off my property.

 

[Angry Irishman]

And you say this bill violates it. All I asked was how, which shouldn't be hard for you to tell us.

Well then it shouldn't be difficult to explain what you think is OK in that bill and how it doesn't infringe on my rights. I implied from another post that you served as a Marine at one point. Did you not swear to defend the Constitution?

I can play this game as well although I'm about to stop as I've said I'm tired and need to sleep.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Incorrect.

Irish.

True....damn. Being Irish can be tiresome sometimes.

 

[fskimospy]

Well then it shouldn't be difficult to explain what you think is OK in that bill and how it doesn't infringe on my rights.

I can play this game as well although I'm about to stop as I've said I'm tired and need to sleep.

That doesn't make any sense. I never said anything about the bill, you made a positive statement that it was unconstitutional. That means the burden of proof is on you.

Similarly if I said the moon was made of cheese the burden is not on you to disprove it.

 

[Fern]

I read an article recently that I thought was very on point. Why the fetishization of the second amendment but not the others? Of all the amendments that guarantee personal liberties, having to overthrow the government with guns is absolutely the least likely to happen.

Many of the same people who so fervently defend the second amendment were fine with warrantless wiretapping in the name of fighting terrorism, were down with indefinite detention, etc, etc. Those are freedoms the government might abridge EVERY DAY, yet I see no similar level of outrage from these people. Why?

The wiretapping I was OK with was that for foreign communications originating (and terminating) in foreign countries, but because of new technology are now passed/routed through the USA. Previously, if two foreign 'spies' were communicating, say one was in Berlin and the other in Paris, we had no Constitutional problems - no subpoena required. If technology changes such that the foreign call is merely routed through US territory I find that change insignificant to compel a subpoena. Non-US citizens in a foreign country have no US constitutional rights IMO.

Warrantless wiretapping of US citizens is something I do have a big problem with.

I have no problem with indefinite detention of non-US citizens captured on the battlefield. I remember in past wars prisoners were held indefinitely. I have no problem with a US military tribunal to determine if they (foreign combatants) should, or should not, be treated as POWs.

I do have a big problem with the concept of US citizens being detained indefinitely without (non-military) trial.

Oversimplifications are of no help when discussing issues.

Fern

 

[Angry Irishman]

That doesn't make any sense. I never said anything about the bill, you made a positive statement that it was unconstitutional. That means the burden of proof is on you.

Similarly if I said the moon was made of cheese the burden is not on you to disprove it.

Everything about her bill infringes on our rights....happy. She also has a beehive hairdo and yellow teeth that I don't care for.

Are you saying the moon is made of cheese? What kind? The burden of proof is now on you. Should we have the federal govt legislate on cheese as well? That's probably in their job jar. Funny thing...they already do.

 

[fskimospy]

Everything about her bill infringes on our rights....happy. She also has a beehive hairdo and yellow teeth that I don't care for.

Are you saying the moon is made of cheese? What kind? The burden of proof is now on you. Should we have the federal govt legislate on cheese as well? That's probably in their job jar.

So you have no answer. That makes me think your objection is based more on tribalism than actual objections to it.

Pretty lame.

 

[Angry Irishman]

So you have no answer. That makes me think your objection is based more on tribalism than actual objections to it.

Pretty lame.

Are you calling me tribal? I'm not in the mood to parley on an internet forum this morning. You're baiting answers in order to argue...you know it, I know it.

I don't want bans on assault weapons or magazines....it's stupid as shit and has no base in logic. Again, reference the Constitution. The Marine may not make rank but I agree with his statements.

Now, are you for that bill?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you calling me tribal? I'm not in the mood to parley on an internet forum this morning. You're baiting answers in order to argue...you know it, I know it.

I don't want bans on assault weapons or magazines....it's stupid as shit and has no base in logic. Again, reference the Constitution. The Marine may not make rank but I agree with his statements.

Now, are you for that bill?

I have no idea why asking you why you oppose something has you so riled up.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I have no idea why asking you why you oppose something has you so riled up.

Maybe I'm just angry today and I don't believe the moon is made of cheese. Do you agree with the bill?

 

[ivwshane]

Are you calling me tribal? I'm not in the mood to parley on an internet forum this morning. You're baiting answers in order to argue...you know it, I know it.

I don't want bans on assault weapons or magazines....it's stupid as shit and has no base in logic. Again, reference the Constitution. The Marine may not make rank but I agree with his statements.

Now, are you for that bill?

Not in the mood? And yet you are in the mood to post 15 times in this thread? Sorry not buying it.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Not in the mood? And yet you are in the mood to post 15 times in this thread? Sorry not buying it.

Then don't...

I've answered his question and played the bait game...with no answers to my simple question. I wasn't aware that I needed your buy-in.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So then if the majority disapproves then she will be voted out and the law will be repealed or changed.

No one senator or congressman has the power to usurp the constitution.

No but they can lead the way and prevent legal challenges so things can't even go to court. When the law is created in such a way that it cannot be challenged by citizens how is it repealed?

You underestimate the ability of determined representatives. I suggest you look into how she's an integral part in preventing legislation which provides accounting for purely domestic wiretaps. Considering her and many in the government there's little reason to trust them when safeguarding other rights.

You suggest to just vote them out and things will change. In theory that's nice. In practice it doesn't happen. You can't even get politicians to sit down and work out other issues like the cliff unless they have their feet to the fire. I'm not so naive to believe that theoretical solutions to wrongs written in law are easily corrected. You'll be hard pressed to find many examples.

 

[ivwshane]

No but they can lead the way and prevent legal challenges so things can't even go to court. When the law is created in such a way that it cannot be challenged by citizens how is it repealed?

You underestimate the ability of determined representatives. I suggest you look into how she's an integral part in preventing legislation which provides accounting for purely domestic wiretaps. Considering her and many in the government there's little reason to trust them when safeguarding other rights.

You suggest to just vote them out and things will change. In theory that's nice. In practice it doesn't happen. You can't even get politicians to sit down and work out other issues like the cliff unless they have their feet to the fire. I'm not so naive to believe that theoretical solutions to wrongs written in law are easily corrected. You'll be hard pressed to find many examples.

You really didn't prove your point. No one senator or congress person has that kind of power. Now maybe if you get a couple of them together you might have a point but even still there are checks and balances, it's up to the people to ensure that those balances happen. You complain but you are blaming the wrong thing. People get what they vote for.

 

[Angry Irishman]

You really didn't prove your point. No one senator or congress person has that kind of power. Now maybe if you get a couple of them together you might have a point but even still there are checks and balances, it's up to the people to ensure that those balances happen. You complain but you are blaming the wrong thing. People get what they vote for.

Yea, you're right, it isn't just one career politician on the Hill with that power...they run in packs. This is true for both parties. Another great reason for limited terms and to knock them off their high horses.

You're also correct that it's people's own fault. People need to wake up and realize what power THEY should yield in terms of our government. Alas, the true housewives of Beverly Hills in on....fuck it.

 

[ivwshane]

Yea, you're right, it isn't just one career politician on the Hill with that power...they run in packs. This is true for both parties. Another great reason for limited terms and to knock them off their high horses.

You're also correct that it's people's own fault. People need to wake up and realize what power THEY should yield in terms of our government. Alas, the true housewives of Beverly Hills in on....fuck it.

I agree which is why I don't spend all my time preaching and defending a right that won't be taken away and instead focus on real issues that actually do and have eroded our rights or that make it harder for the citizens to have the government they want.



Sadly, most only care about amendments with a "2nd" in front of it.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Everything about her bill infringes on our rights....happy.

Link to proof from a reputable source? IOW, from someone other then a troll.

If Congress passes a law, guess what, it's the law and must be obeyed unless and until a Federal Judge finds it illegal (or Congress amends/voids it with another law). You can choose to not follow it at your own peril, but it's the law and you and others would be breaking the law.

It's not up to an ex-corporal or you to pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Link to proof from a reputable source? IOW, from someone other then a troll.

If Congress passes a law, guess what, it's the law and must be obeyed unless and until a Federal Judge finds it illegal (or Congress amends/voids it with another law). You can choose to not follow it at your own peril, but it's the law and you and others would be breaking the law.

It's not up to an ex-corporal or you to pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.

Prove you're argument...the second amendment is clearly written and had and has a purpose....that's my source. Just because the government is doing something doesn't make it correct. This isn't just about the second amendment; it's about a slow and steady erosion of our Constitutional rights.

YOU might be OK with that I'm not and many others aren't either. YOU can choose to accept whatever comes your way; I don't have to. That is one of the founding premises of this Republic.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I agree which is why I don't spend all my time preaching and defending a right that won't be taken away and instead focus on real issues that actually do and have eroded our rights or that make it harder for the citizens to have the government they want.



Sadly, most only care about amendments with a "2nd" in front of it.

I'm not preaching shit by I am defending it. I'm stating what is a fact based in law. To what level of "taken away" is acceptable? This can mean many things. Saying something won't be taken away is a pretty trusting and not really what history has proven to be the case.

It's a slippery slope and you're also correct that there is a lot more at stake than the second amendment.

 

[Tom]

Because clearly registering firearms will stop the senseless mass shootings. It worked rather well from keeping Jiverly Antares Wong from taking his 2 leaglly registered in New York pistols and killing 13 people in Binghamton NY.

no one thinks it will stop all senseless shootings.

but it might stop one.

 

[Angry Irishman]

no one thinks it will stop all senseless shootings.

but it might stop one.

So the responsible citizen pays the price for those individuals who are bat shit crazy? Nope....

 

[Tom]

So the responsible citizen pays the price for those individuals who are bat shit crazy? Nope....

pay what price ? what will be missing ? this doesn't ban firearms.

what if it saves a child's life ?

I can agree that dealing with mental health issues is probably even more important, but is also a very difficult problem because of the social stigma and the financial cost.

Many of the same people who don't want the AWB are the same people who don't want to give food to hungry people. We're supposed to believe they want to address mental health ?