More pressure on SCOTUS to hear Maryland AWB

[nortatoga]

Digging what? What exactly do you mean by that?

As as far as knowing how things work, I'm well aware of the corruption, misinterpretation, and skewing done to the 2A by politicians and judges.

Anyone who isn't aware is brainwashed.

So the 5 Justice's that voted in favor of Heller v DC got it wrong?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So the 5 Justice's that voted in favor of Heller v DC got it wrong?

Yes. They added restrictions. Restrictions are infringements. Read the decision.

 

[Chuck D]

You quote Heller as if the founding fathers intended it to go via that decision. If Heller had one more liberal judge, the decision would have been different.

Fuck that. They weren't designed to run with 10 round magazines just the same as your car want designed to run with just 5 gallons.

Nowhere in the 2A, does it say that firearm parts can be limited.

...and nowhere does it say they can't.

I don't support limitations but I'm realistic enough to know that the "all or nothing" approach has proven to be a zero sum game .

 

[Criticalt]

So you are saying 30 round magazines are banned?
Huh, I didnt know that.

 

[Chuck D]

Thank you Justice Taney.

That's some cowardly bullshit right there. Something I'd bet you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face. Not to say that's the leftist tactic of deflecting fact and truth by labeling someone a supporter of racism. You should be proud of yourself. I'd bet there's an "expert commentator" position just waiting for you at CNN.

Now....how about proving me wrong by quoting the "successes" legal experts, pro-gun organizations, and Courts have achieved using the "infringement" perspectives regarding magazine capacity.

Problem with your approach is simply that you can't because there are no legal grounds you can point to that state otherwise. 10 round capacity magazines are an INDUSTRY STANDARD of which is hard to ignore.

Again...civilized conversation, backed by fact, legal findings, and a record of object failure in overturning standard magazine capacity restrictions stunt your argument.

 

[Marine Cpl]

...and nowhere does it say they can't.

I don't support limitations but I'm realistic enough to know that the "all or nothing" approach has proven to be a zero sum game .

Read the 2A. There is a word called infringed in there. Call me an extremist, call me a literal reader or what have you. It says what it says.

The problem is that people (yourself included because you quoted Heller) have been conditioned to accept the skewing of it and have developed the acceptance of the skewing of the Constitution because some clowns in black robes say so.

Meanwhile other clowns in black robes from other courts come to different decisions on the same thing that is clear cut.

If you cannot see that corruption, well then everything from the 9th Circuit is well done and ruled properly and just.

 

[GuyMontag]

That's some cowardly bullshit right there. Something I'd bet you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.

Lighten up Francis, and thanks for internet toughguy act, I'm quaking.

 

[nortatoga]

Yes. They added restrictions. Restrictions are infringements. Read the decision.

They did not add restrictions! I have read it many times! It's right there in my signature the restrictions were already there an up held by the courts!

 

[Marine Cpl]

They did not add restrictions! I have read it many times! It's right there in my signature the restrictions were already there an up held by the courts!

It says that it isn't an unlimited right and that it's protection is limited to the home. Or something to that notion. Is that an infringement in your eyes?

 

[Mosinitis]

Three LEO's here are throwing us under the bus. WTF?

 

[Mosinitis]

There is nothing in the second amendment that protects the magazines, except the entire second amendment. Are we in a twilight zone? What happened?

 

[Chuck D]

Lighten up Francis, and thanks for internet toughguy act, I'm quaking.

Not designed to make you quake, just give you the opportunity to show how much of a tool you are.

Thanks for cooperating ....

 

[Chuck D]

There is nothing in the second amendment that protects the magazines, except the entire second amendment. Are we in a twilight zone? What happened?

Show me where.....

Post it here. So we ALL can see it.

Thanks ..

 

[Marine Cpl]

Problem with your approach is simply that you can't because there are no legal grounds you can point to that state otherwise.

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.

How about starting with the 2nd Amendment. You don't need a fancy law degree to read and interpret that. All you need is a basic understanding of English.

That's like years from now a bunch of clowns in Black robes rule that the 1st Amendment is not an unlimited right and is only protected in one's home. You cannot say anything on public streets that disparages a public official due to public safety and order.

If that was the ruling, would you accept it?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Show me where.....

Post it here. So we ALL can see it.

Thanks ..

Don't act blind sir. You don't have to win this one.

 

[Chuck D]

Read the 2A. There is a word called infringed in there. Call me an extremist, call me a literal reader or what have you. It says what it says.

The problem is that people (yourself included because you quoted Heller) have been conditioned to accept the skewing of it and have developed the acceptance of the skewing of the Constitution because some clowns in black robes say so.

Meanwhile other clowns in black robes from other courts come to different decisions on the same thing that is clear cut.

If you cannot see that corruption, well then everything from the 9th Circuit is well done and ruled properly and just.

Scalia stated that the right is subject to restrictions. I didn't say it, a SCOTUS member in high esteem said that.

How about coming to grips with that.

 

[Mosinitis]

Show me where.....

Post it here. So we ALL can see it.

Thanks ..

What????????????????????

 

[Chuck D]

Don't act blind sir. You don't have to win this one.

Let you in on a little secret...we've ALL already lost.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Scalia stated that the right is subject to restrictions. I didn't say it, a SCOTUS member in high esteem said that.

How about coming to grips with that.

I've come to grips that they are corrupt. Can you?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Let you in on a little secret...we've ALL already lost.

No shit?

 

[GuyMontag]

Not designed to make you quake, just give you the opportunity to show how much of a tool you are.

Thanks again for the toughguy display, I'm loving it!

Predictably you can't argue the facts, but by all means continue the charade.

 

[Chuck D]

With all the constitutional experts here it's a wonder we haven't won the big one yet.

Regardless of the fact that the results achieved thus far has been lacking in the winning dept.

All mouth through the keyboard no facts given to back up the hyperbole. When backed into a corner...all one gets is deflection.

Typical .

 

[nortatoga]

It says that it isn't an unlimited right and that it's protection is limited to the home. Or something to that notion. Is that an infringement in your eyes?

Dick Heller sued for a license to keep a registered pistol in his home! That was not restrictions put on by the Court.

 

[Mosinitis]

Beam me up, Scotty.

 

[Chuck D]

No shit?

Ugh.....

 

[Marine Cpl]

With all the constitutional experts here it's a wonder we haven't won the big one yet.

Regardless of the fact that the results achieved thus far has been lacking in the winning dept.

All mouth through the keyboard no facts given to back up the hyperbole. When backed into a corner...all one gets is deflection.

Typical .

What does this have to do with keyboards and mouths? Saying this nonsense doesn't win the argument.

What facts are you looking for us to give you? Court cases from corrupt judges that don't know what "shall not be infringed" means?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Dick Heller sued for a license to keep a registered pistol in his home! That was not restrictions put on by the Court.

OMG. Seriously?

 

[GuyMontag]

With all the constitutional experts here it's a wonder we haven't won the big one yet.

There's a huge difference between a qualified legal opinion and what you've offered, so why get your panties in such a wad?

If you want to pretend like the 2nd Amendment was only defined post 1934, that's your prerogative, but still doesn't make it factual.

 

[Cooolone]

Not going to read through all the BS...

I guess reading comprehension is a problem and the fact that there is arguing over magazines at all proves my point that I posted. Both sides of the argument are wrong, entirely!

If "STRICT" scrutiny is applied, as it "IS" to other rights, but not the 2nd. There is NO argument at all, because as such, I can enjoy exercising my 2nd Amendment Right any Damned way I see fit! So maybe those who profess to know how the courts work, and those who don't care, would do themselves all a world of good to understand the difference!

In a truly FREE society, whereas the inalienable rights are mine, and not granted, considered, or given by the courts, or politicians, but by birth, that says it all. When we allow and accept the thought that these Rights or any part of them are ok to be infringed upon, in any manner, then we have lost. Fact is, if the magazine is not protected, or has no real worth, then why regulate it? It's counterintuitive to say otherwise, like just because it's good for the children or LE. We could attach the same line of thinking to HP rounds. Green tip, etc., as has been tried. It's an artificial round-about method of control and little more. When you defacto disarm law abiding citizens at the expense of allowing the criminal element to have an upper hand, then you are lawfully denying your citizens their "Right" to defense, period! And the courts should not be setting the bar on what level of defense is acceptable. Furthermore, I find it counterintuitive as well that LE has justification to arm themselves to the teeth under the same premise, ie, protection/defense, and then claim a citizen not be afforded the same. In itself, it creates a separate class in my opinion as in all seriousness, it's just a job. It would be no different to allow those with household incomes above $500,000.00 to be exempt from being required to have a pistol license... It would be a separate class of people afforded special privileges due to their vocation or affluence! That's not where I wanted this to go, but it's a good example. See, in other countries, even the LE aren't allow to take their toys home and must be like every other citizen once they leave the office, lol. Anyways...

So... "STRICT" scrutiny is where we need to be!!!

That is all, thanks for reading, lol.

 

[Chuck D]

What does this have to do with keyboards and mouths? Saying this no nonsense doesn't win the argument.

What facts are you looking for us to give you? Court cases from corrupt judges that don't know what "shall not be infringed" means?

This isn't a matter of winning or losing an argument. It's about determining whether a reduced capacity magazines is a 2nd Amendment infringement. I'm saying it isn't because since 1994 firearms have been shipped with 10 round magazines that are now considered an industry standard. You and others argue the opposite but provide NO proof of your position other than read the 2nd Amendment which my the way has been interperated a million ways to Sunday since time began.

Now show me where I'm wrong so I can change my opinion on the matter or let's agree to disagree. It's really that simple