• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Unconstitutional gun control laws won't be enforced

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oh good, Linn County, with around 100,000 people and, let's be generous, 3 towns. I suppose it's good to get a National conversation started, but one sheriff representing the 8th most populous county in the 27th most populous state isn't actually that much to get excited about.
 
OP has pretty much ruined this forum for me, as a lurker most of the time. I'm sure he's done this to others as well. Every thread gets twisted and infected with his bullshit and people continue to give him responses and attention. Sadly i'm doing this by simply responding to his stupid thread.
 
ShintaiDK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Until the Supreme court says so it doesn't matter what you think. The law at the moment allows people to have guns.
 
It is ridiculous to say that one must wait for a court to rule on something before a person in a position of responsibility makes a personal judgment on the constitutionality of a law he would have to enforce. It is his duty to not enforce a law he feels is unconstitutional.


Otherwise he would just be following orders. That excuse didn't fly for all of the Nazi's tried at Nuremberg.
 
mrCide said:
OP has pretty much ruined this forum for me, as a lurker most of the time. I'm sure he's done this to others as well. Every thread gets twisted and infected with his bullshit and people continue to give him responses and attention. Sadly i'm doing this by simply responding to his stupid thread.
Click to expand...

You can ban him from the forum, but you can't eliminate his dementia by fiat. I see that folk like him exist in darkness, anger, and misery. I see him as a fellow human being who lives in darkness and misery and I want to find a way to help him. None of the usual methodologies that people generally employ seem to work. Science has offered up some possibilities, that, while logic can't reach his sort of mind, other approaches may. Remember, for every mental prison that people create for themselves, there is also a key. The gun issue is of little import. This guy is mad in many directions and delusional on countless issues. You can't ever really be happy so long as other people are sick. So I guess the good news is that there are those who take an interest but the bad news is that the problem if far bigger and far worse than you think. 😉
 
Agent11 said:
It is ridiculous to say that one must wait for a court to rule on something before a person in a position of responsibility makes a personal judgment on the constitutionality of a law he would have to enforce. It is his duty to not enforce a law he feels is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Well put.
 
PokerGuy said:
It's funny how some idiots don't understand what "well regulated" meant in the context and time it was written. (hint: it's not what you think it means).
Click to expand...

People who don't understand this are not idiots. The legal meaning is greatly contested and complex, full of nuanced reasoning and running into pages and pages. It's meaning can also change with any new SC.
 
PokerGuy said:
It's funny how some idiots don't understand what "well regulated" meant in the context and time it was written. (hint: it's not what you think it means).
Click to expand...

Then the same thing can be said about the right to bear arms (hint: weapons and their use aren't what they used to be)

Tit for Tat my friend.
 
Agent11 said:
It is ridiculous to say that one must wait for a court to rule on something before a person in a position of responsibility makes a personal judgment on the constitutionality of a law he would have to enforce. It is his duty to not enforce a law he feels is unconstitutional.


Otherwise he would just be following orders. That excuse didn't fly for all of the Nazi's tried at Nuremberg.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, no, but perfectly OK to ignore so long as you are willing to be fired from your job. And right, those folk who followed orders of a lesser authority like Hitler over international human rights laws, paid the price of not obeying the higher law. All any official who does not want to carry our a federal law has to prove in court is that there is a higher law that takes precedence. Best of luck with that.
 
Oh, and I did mention, did I not, that the problem with conservative gun nuts is that what they feel in their guts supercedes what the Supreme Court rules because you psychos know better. You don't gots to show no stinken batches.
 
PokerGuy said:
It's funny how some idiots don't understand what "well regulated" meant in the context and time it was written. (hint: it's not what you think it means).
Click to expand...

Agree. These people really need to just shutup.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, What is so hard to understand about this?
 
Moonbeam said:
Oh, and I did mention, did I not, that the problem with conservative gun nuts is that what they feel in their guts supercedes what the Supreme Court rules because you psychos know better. You don't gots to show no stinken batches.
Click to expand...

Let's not be unfair, that's true of anybody with strongly held beliefs, not just conservatives. I firmly believe with every fiber of my being that gay marriage is just as sacred as straight marriage. So far, the Supreme Court hasn't agreed with me. Does that make my stance wrong? Of course not. It just conflicts with the current law of the land. The expectation that people should march lock-step with every decision the Supreme Court makes is nonsense.
 
Incorruptible said:
Agree. These people really need to just shutup.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, What is so hard to understand about this?
Click to expand...

OK, how about this:

"Keeping and bearing arms as part of a well regulated militia" or "The right to keep and bear arms" shouldn't be interpreted as "I should be be able to own whatever gun I want regardless of how dangerous said gun is or how crazy and irresponsible I am".

Is this a fair compromise?
 
Incorruptible said:
The Constitution is not to be violated and any attempts to do this must be stopped.
Click to expand...

true.

We should still have slaves, then. Shit, we shouldn't be able to drink booze.

We should learn from history that this piece of paper is completely infallible and all debate concerning its words be suppressed and stopped with the full authority of law and justice.
 
Moonbeam said:
Until the Supreme court says so it doesn't matter what you think. The law at the moment allows people to have guns.
Click to expand...

Even then it won't matter. Natural rights are absolute. When the Supreme court decides to rubber stamp the executive and legislative branches and throw out the constitution, we have lost our nation of the people by the people and for the people, and the opinion of the government is no longer relevant or valid.
 
Lithium381 said:
Federal Law > State Law, but in the end Constitution > *
Click to expand...

Not even that. The constitution is merely a framework devised by man to attempt to protect natural rights of individuals. The principles and context in which it stands for are far greater than what a piece of paper with a few 1000 words can express. For example, constitutional means could be used to throw out principles of the constitution via majority control of all three branches, all the states, etc, that doesn't mean it's right.

The constitution itself is really nothing more than a clever ruse designed by the founders to stall the inevitable ignorant masses from abusing the self governed system to take away the rights of others for as long as possible. They had already conceded that it wasn't going to last forever.

The principles that the constitution were meant to embody and protect are intangible and timeless and exist beyond the constitution itself. The constitution is merely a human devised framework to protect the intangible, and as it is a human implement, it is prone to failure from time to time. In the event of it's failure, abolishing even, the spirit of liberty it was originally drafted to preserve still exists and supersedes it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top