Unconstitutional gun control laws won't be enforced

[umbrella39]

P&N's posting guidelines, which serve to supplement the AnandTech Forum posting rules, are as follows:

1. No thread-crapping, thread-derailment, off-topic posting, trolling, the intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.
(rule permanently adopted by community vote Jun 06, 2012)

Having state officials telling Federal officials they won't enforce laws/regulations that are unconstitutional is hardly trolling. Backing it up with 2 links to mainstream media (CNN and Fox) is hardly fringe.

Stop waving these flags all the time, it makes you look like jaded crybaby girl every time. You of all people....

 

[Incorruptible]

I am personally one of those exact stories. My neighbors and I put a guy at each of the two entrances to the neighborhood visibly armed with long guns. Plenty of thugs started coming our way but the moment they saw the shotgun (usually, few of the guys had hunting rifles) the entire group, despite outmanning the lone guy guarding the neighborhood 10 fold most of the time as well as outarming the lone guard who knows how many times, every single solitary time turned around and went elsewhere. No shots were ever fired, the simple fact that they would have to go through someone who was willing to send lead there way as well deterred them. Other neighborhoods within blocks of us who had no one visibly armed outside in the neighborhood didn't fair nearly as well.

And this is why guns in the hands of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS is a good thing. Its interesting how gun control advocates dont mention anything about gun confiscation during Katrina

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

 

[Darwin333]

So instead of enforcing regulations, which is states should happen anyways, we punish you after committing the crime and taking a life?

That IS the way the law works. Law exists not to prevent crime although it can sometimes help but punish people AFTER they have committed a crime. Just like murder laws do not pursued people to not commit murder they simply give us the ability to punish people after they actually commit murder.

 

[Darwin333]

And this is why guns in the hands of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS is a good thing. Its interesting how gun control advocates dont mention anything about gun confiscation during Katrina

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

I know way more stories of that then you will find on youtube as I truly did live through it. Luckily, I live in Jefferson Parish and the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs officers actually encouraged what we were doing versus trying to disarm us like they did in NOLA. There reasoning was absurdly logical, they knew that their resources were spread absurdly thin and a group of armed residents protecting a neighborhood was one less place that they had to patrol on a constant basis freeing them to respond to more immediate threats.

 

[Arkaign]

I'm a liberty-minded person. That makes me a hard dude to put into a box.

I believe in gay rights and gay marriage, I don't believe it's my business if they aren't hurting anyone.

I believe in gun rights and low restrictions on LEGAL LAW ABIDING owners, I don't believe it's my business if they aren't hurting anyone.

I believe that non-violent drug enforcement is largely bullshit, and that it's been done for political/power/money reasons rather than logic or liberty.

I believe that progressive taxation is a good thing and that government can and does have a valuable role in infrastructure, defense, and social safety (with sensible limitations).

Where does that leave me?

I feel like most groups have some good ideas and good intentions, but tribal mentality leads to illogical stances on some things. People that say that they support liberty often support parties/ideas that step on someone's freedoms in a fundamental way.

 

[Darwin333]

Ducati,

With this post, I now see, understand, and agree with the viewpoint that this is the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, and I rescind my previous posts that the 2nd amendment had phrasing to regulate gun control for the people.

In all honesty, thank you.

Having said that, I do not see where incorporating a form of gun control that is conditional based on the type of gun would be deemed un-constitutional, as the bearer still has the right to bear arms (just not certain ones). If I am incorrect, please show me!

The intent of the 2nd amendment was to protect us from the well regulated militia. If they passed a law limiting us to muskets that would be in direct opposition to the actual intent of the 2nd amendment (and please don't bring up the stupid nuke argument). The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is there to guarantee us a fighting chance against a tyrannical government.

 

[Darwin333]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

 

[Agent11]

Anyways, the supreme court already upheld our view of the 2nd amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

So suck it.

 

[Ausm]

Anyways, the supreme court already upheld our view of the 2nd amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

So suck it.

I don't see many Rightists mentioning this little morsel.

 

[Agent11]

So now you have to be a 'rightist' to believe in the constitution? Seriously?

 

[Incorruptible]

So now you have to be a 'rightist' to believe in the constitution? Seriously?

He is just a troll, ignore him

 

[Ausm]

So now you have to be a 'rightist' to believe in the constitution? Seriously?

You must not frequent this Forum much because 99% of them who Troll this forum (including the dipshit who posted after your thread) believe that.

 

[1prophet]

Indeed. They only seem tor ead what they wish to read. Perhaps a refresh of the text is in order:



Advocating unregulated gunlaw..is actually against the 2nd amendment. Who would have thought.

And lets lookup the definition of militia:


You could actually ban all guns in the US and still comply with the 2nd amendment. The national guard is the militia.

The national guard in reality is a cost saving extension of the military and has to meet all the same professional requirements as the full time military and is subject to deployment just like the full time military no emergency necessary , therefore it contradicts what you posted as a requirement for militia.

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm a liberty-minded person. That makes me a hard dude to put into a box.

I believe in gay rights and gay marriage, I don't believe it's my business if they aren't hurting anyone.

I believe in gun rights and low restrictions on LEGAL LAW ABIDING owners, I don't believe it's my business if they aren't hurting anyone.

I believe that non-violent drug enforcement is largely bullshit, and that it's been done for political/power/money reasons rather than logic or liberty.

I believe that progressive taxation is a good thing and that government can and does have a valuable role in infrastructure, defense, and social safety (with sensible limitations).

Where does that leave me?

I feel like most groups have some good ideas and good intentions, but tribal mentality leads to illogical stances on some things. People that say that they support liberty often support parties/ideas that step on someone's freedoms in a fundamental way.

I'm about the same. It's called a libertarian/centrist. Meaning you are more focused on having more individual liberties (libertarian moniker) and still see a collective good use for government so long as it is within reason (neither right nor left in their stance on government involvement).

 

[sigurros81]

I'm a liberty-minded person. That makes me a hard dude to put into a box.

I believe in gay rights and gay marriage, I don't believe it's my business if they aren't hurting anyone.

I believe in gun rights and low restrictions on LEGAL LAW ABIDING owners, I don't believe it's my business if they aren't hurting anyone.

I believe that non-violent drug enforcement is largely bullshit, and that it's been done for political/power/money reasons rather than logic or liberty.

I believe that progressive taxation is a good thing and that government can and does have a valuable role in infrastructure, defense, and social safety (with sensible limitations).

Where does that leave me?

I feel like most groups have some good ideas and good intentions, but tribal mentality leads to illogical stances on some things. People that say that they support liberty often support parties/ideas that step on someone's freedoms in a fundamental way.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[monovillage]

I'm about the same. It's called a libertarian/centrist. Meaning you are more focused on having more individual liberties (libertarian moniker) and still see a collective good use for government so long as it is within reason (neither right nor left in their stance on government involvement).

Yep, because i'm in total agreement with all the points. I'd add I believe in fair trade, not free trade and I believe in the legality of abortion.