Unconstitutional gun control laws won't be enforced

[brandonb]

You not only missed regulated, you also missed militia.

You retards never learn.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

You can't have a militia if the peoples right to bear arms is infringed. How does a militia come into being? A militia can be created by people protesting at a capital with pitchforks. It's not a militia if the pitchforks are taken away, then all we'd have is protesters.

 

[gothamhunter]

You retards never learn.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

You can't have a militia if the peoples right to bear arms is infringed. How does a militia come into being? A militia can be created by people protesting at a capital with pitchforks. It's not a militia if the pitchforks are taken away, then all we'd have is protesters.

I don't understand your argument. No one is claiming that people will not be able to bear arms, we're just saying that part of the 2nd amendment is that it's to be well regulated.

 

[exdeath]

You not only missed regulated, you also missed militia.

And you missed the thousands of other supporting documents and philosophical ideas that existed at the time the constitution was hastily written.

 

[exdeath]

I don't understand your argument. No one is claiming that people will not be able to bear arms, we're just saying that part of the 2nd amendment is that it's to be well regulated.

Cut that tired shitty argument. It's like saying "nobody is going to take your cars away, just the tires" when you know full and well a car is useless without tires. Same concept applies to the ridiculous ideas people pass off as "reasonable regulation".

You aren't fooling anyone with that sly shit anymore.

Also, FYI, when you anti gunners throw around terms like "limited access" or "restrictions" or "common sense regulations", then throw around a TOTAL BAN on certain types of firearms? It's not "limited access" or "restricted" if non criminal civilians can't ever access those types of firearms at all regardless of how many hoops they have to jump through. That is called complete prohibition , not "limiting access".

You aren't fooling anyone.

Not that I would support it, but "limited access" implies that there a longer wait time or more detailed background check for "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" but that eventually someone with no history of violence or mental illness CAN eventually get one. An assault weapons ban does not do this, it completely prohibits those weapons from being produced or sold to anyone at all, EVER. Ergo its not "reasonable restrictions" or "limited access" or "keeping guns from those who shouldn't have them", it's all out prohibition for all, forever.

So just quit with the clever bullshit ok?

 

[gothamhunter]

Cut that tired shitty argument. It's like saying "nobody is going to take your cars away, just the tires".

No, it's like saying "Nobody is going to take all of your cars away, just the ones that have the capability of going over 200MPH."

edit - let me know when you're done editing your post so I can properly respond.

 

[Agent11]

He isn't an American, so I wouldn't be surprised that he fails to grasp the 2nd amendment in context.

 

[brandonb]

I don't understand your argument. No one is claiming that people will not be able to bear arms, we're just saying that part of the 2nd amendment is that it's to be well regulated.

Click the link I provided.

 

[schneiderguy]

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

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[gothamhunter]

Click the link I provided.

I did; nothing is infringing on the 2nd amendment, so I don't understand the argument you're trying to make.

 

[exdeath]

No, it's like saying "Nobody is going to take all of your cars away, just the ones that have the capability of going over 200MPH."

Yes, it's exactly like that. Which is why it's bullshit.

Actually its more like saying "Nobody is going to take all of your cars away, just the ones that have the capability of going over 55MPH." that way it's more similar in scope with the percentage of prohibited items an assault weapons ban would have.

I will own whatever car I please. You throw me in jail when I do 200 mph and kill someone. You do not take away everyone else's car.

And if I ever can't buy one because it's banned, I'll build my own, and those who don't like it can go dry fuck themselves.

 

[gothamhunter]

Yes, it's exactly like that. Which is why it's bullshit.

Why? You still have a right to own a car, but with regulations.

 

[gothamhunter]

I will own whatever car I please. You throw me in jail when I do 200 mph and kill someone. You do not take away everyone else's car.

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

 

[exdeath]

Why? You still have a right to own a car, but with regulations.

Because I have a right to free choice and to buy a car that isn't a boring Prius, that's why. Do not infringe on my free market liberty to buy the property I choose.

If someone wants a Corvette and not a Corolla, that's not for anyone else to decide but the person paying the invoice.

 

[exdeath]

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

Yes that's how free societies work. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Real life isnt like Minority Report, we don't go around banning everything and keeping people locked in bubbles and punishing people for things that MIGHT happen. We already do a lot of that as it is, that doesn't mean existing cases are right either.

Yeah some people will abuse that. You can't stop everybody who does all the time. So stop trying and stop taking out innocent victims along the way.

If I killed an innocent person due to my own negligence, you won't have to punish me, I'll do society the favor myself. Problem solved. Leave everyone else out of it.

 

[Agent11]

Yes. Preferably by hanging from the neck until dead, although the electric chair does have some merit as a deterrent I would say.

The modern movement away from capital punishment is insane.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Monovillage is correct.

And I'm really annoyed at being forced to stand up for Incorruptible. (And no, you may not put that in your sig.)

*looks at Incorruptible's signature*

Ha ha.
And that's why no one should bother to defend a troll.

 

[rudder]

No law is unconstitutional if passed until the Supreme Court says it is. If Oregon and Texas think they have a beef, they can take it to the courts. Otherwise, federal law trumps state law. The problem is that lunatics like the OP think they know what the Constitution says before the courts do and that if the courts rule other than what he believes, the courts, not they, are wrong. He may do so all he wishes so long as he obeys the law as stated, not as he believes it should be applied. We have prisons for folk who think they are the law and act out their personal code even if a violation.

Except there have been multiple Supreme Court rulings that would support the sheriffs position. SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendments allows civilians to own the same type of weapons as our military. Of course there are limits to this such as crew operated weapons systems and fully automatic guns.... but none of this is new.

 

[monovillage]

I also find it interesting that when the states of Washington and Colorado pass laws that legalize marijuana and tell the Feds that they won't enforce federal laws against it that many on the left think that's just fine and a good move by state officials. When the same argument is put forward about a constitutional issue, not a drug issue, they react with horror.

I'm also really annoyed to be standing up for incorruptible, he's a jerk.

 

[HumblePie]

Why? You still have a right to own a car, but with regulations.

You are stupid. There are no regulations to owning a car. Wow the retard in you is completely fail.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

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.

You really have no understanding of what the hell you are talking about in this case.

The "well regulated militia" part is a reference to the events which occurred during the US Revolutionary war. In which British state militias were used to oppress American colonists. Hence while a "well regulated militia" is needed to preserve the state the right of "THE PEOPLE" to own and bare arms (i.e. personal firearms) will not be revoked or hindered by our government or "regulated militias".

A better explanation as to why you are so fucking wrong that it is not even funny in any way but completely disturbing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[gothamhunter]

You are stupid. There are no regulations to owning a car. Wow the retard in you is completely fail.

It was an comparison, HumblePie; and of course there are no regulations with owning a car

Also, NUH UH YOU ARE.

 

[gothamhunter]

You really have no understanding of what the hell you are talking about in this case.

The "well regulated militia" part is a reference to the events which occurred during the US Revolutionary war. In which British state militias were used to oppress American colonists. Hence while a "well regulated militia" is needed to preserve the state the right of "THE PEOPLE" to own and bare arms (i.e. personal firearms) will not be revoked or hindered by our government or "regulated militias".

A better explanation as to why you are so fucking wrong that it is not even funny in any way but completely disturbing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

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!

 

[Arglebargle]

Historically, if you actually check out the natures of militias at the time, they showed up with what weapons they had. This could be anything from squirrel rifles, to pikes, to nothing. During the Civil War, you found the same sort of thing, volunteers showing up with the full gamut of weaponry, from nothing to everything. One German-American private militia from St Louis already had uniforms, musketry, and their own artillery park, which they had been practicing with for a year.

My reading of the history shows very little standardization, and almost no attempt to do so. Of course, the giant standing armies that we now field would have been anathema to a large chunk of the founding fathers.

 

[HomerJS]

State officials in Oregon and Texas are vowing to fight back against any attempt by the federal government to impose new gun control laws. But in Oregon, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote a letter to Biden Monday saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.



Mueller said the politicians are exploiting the tragedy for political purposes and took an oath to support the Constitution and will not the violate the rights of the people.

Good for Texas and Oregon for standing up against this, The new gun regulations will not work and are just for political purposes, it only serves to take away rights from law abiding citizens. Hopefully more states will follow suit and send a message to the government.

Do you think that Texas and Oregon did the right or wrong thing in warning the WhiteHouse?

Should states refuse to obey laws that violate the Constitution?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/oregon-sheriff-gun-laws/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/

Do you or those states remember we had an assault weapons law passed in the 90s and it was not ruled unconstitutional. Even Scalia indicated the federal government was within its rights to enact resonable gun restrictions

 

[Phanuel]

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!

Derp, because conditional control based on type of firearm is infringement... clearly this combination of words and meanings is hard to understand.