Interpreting the 2A

[Marine Cpl]

See now we aren’t debating the ability to regulate but by what standard.

Because your Scalia made it that way.

 

[Truebeliever]

You aren't getting it. The child porn in itself it's illegal. It doesn't matter if you post it. It's illegal.

Yes, it’s illegal. You get it now. Obscenity can be illegal but no where in the constitution does it say obscenity is the exception to the first admendment. It’s says it can not be “abridged”

 

[E the massive]

Standard for what?

Seriously? For a "civilian" to own. Along with short barreled shotguns. Don't be obtuse.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes, it’s illegal. You get it now. Obscenity can be legal but no where in the constitution does it say obscenity is the exception to the first admendment

Nobody is questioning that. Let's stick to the second amendment being infringed upon please.

Because you're Scalia added conjecture and used the word common, we can no longer get modern firearms. When lasers come out, they aren't going to be common for the citizenry. But the military and police will get them.

Do you see my point? when projectile weapons become obsolete there is no more Second Amendment because of the nonsense that your Scalia conjectured on.

 

[Truebeliever]

Seriously? For a "civilian" to own. Don't be obtuse.

Full auto was available but not the standard or common before NFA.

Go look up who made them , their sales and how they did in the market place.

 

[Truebeliever]

Nobody is questioning that. Let's stick to the second amendment being infringed upon please.

Because you're Scalia added conjecture and used the word common, we can no longer get modern firearms. When lasers come out, they aren't going to be common for the citizenry. But the military and police will get them.

Do you see my point? when projectile weapons become obsolete there is no more Second Amendment because of the nonsense that your Scalia conjectured on.

I get what you are saying . Now that is a different debate.
Acknowledging that they can make restrictions as to what can be owned is different than what restrictions they are allowed to make.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Full auto was available but not the standard or common before NFA.

Go look up who made them , their sales and how they did in the market place.

Because they weren't marketable. There was no YouTube back then to commercialize it. Many people couldn't even afford them or really didn't give a crap about them.

But if NFA didn't exist, people today would have them and they'd be common. Am I right?

 

[nortatoga]

Hmmm...they can't regulate if I have 12 social media profiles, yet they can regulate that I can't have 12 round standard capacity mags for my P99. And the special class citizens can have those same mags that I can't. Not only is the 2nd a second class Right, we're second class citizens

Magazine capacity restriction case's are just starting to go through the Courts.

California Shooting: Judge Blocked State's High-Capacity Magazine Ban

 

[Truebeliever]

Because they weren't marketable. There was no YouTube back then to commercialize it. Many people couldn't even afford them.

But if NFA didn't exist, people today would have them and they'd be common. Am I right?

Again, a different argument.

But it was available for 10 years and marketed in newspapers and magazines. It was a dud because people didn’t want it in great numbers. Even when news reels ( movies) and radio came out, people knew what they could do. They didn’t buy them.
Expense might have been an issue but not enough to stop people if they really wanted it like a kimber of today. Unlike kimber, the demand wasn’t enough.

After the NFA, it was too expensive to be common.

And people mail ordered them back then thru catalogs with no FFL

 

[Marine Cpl]

Again, a different argument.

But it was available for 10 years and marketed in newspapers and magazines. It was a dud because people didn’t want it in great numbers. Even when news reels ( movies) and radio came out, people knew what they could do. They didn’t buy them.
Expense might have been an issue but not enough to stop people if they really wanted it like a kimber of today. Unlike kimber, the demand wasn’t enough.

After the NFA, it was too expensive to be common.

So now the 2A is based on what the people wanted. If they didn't buy them and a certain time frame passed, that's it. They lost them. That's not how it was supposed to be.

Your boy scalia's Trojan horse with the word common was very clever.

He's the worst thing to ever happen to gun rights.

 

[FrankenCub]

Magazine capacity restriction case's are just starting to go through the Courts.

California Shooting: Judge Blocked State's High-Capacity Magazine Ban

And they'll still be allowed to be banned. They'll use the phrase common use and equate it to 10 round mags.

 

[Truebeliever]

Magazine capacity restriction case's are just starting to go through the Courts.

California Shooting: Judge Blocked State's High-Capacity Magazine Ban

I hope the judge tosses out that stupid law.

 

[Truebeliever]

So now the 2A is based on what the people wanted. If they didn't buy them and a certain time frame passed, that's it. They lost them. That's not how it was supposed to be.

Your boy scalia's Trojan horse was very clever.

You are changing the argument. Again, you can argue the “common”standard is wrong instead of your “absolutism” .

I told you the standard I would go with if I was on the court.

 

[E the massive]

Full auto was available but not the standard or common before NFA.

Go look up who made them , their sales and how they did in the market place.

I edited to include short barreled shotguns. It didn't get quoted in your reply.

 

[Truebeliever]

And they'll still be allowed to be banned. They'll use the phrase common use and equate it to 10 round mags.

If the words common use comes out, then it cements the floor of where it can go. If they say they can keep the pre-ban, it will move up towards SCOTUS challenge.

 

[nortatoga]

I hope the judge tosses out that stupid law.

Yes I agree. but it may take a final ruling by the SCOTUS to put it to bed.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are changing the argument. Again, you can argue the “common”standard is wrong instead of your “absolutism” .

I told you the standard I would go with if I was on the court.

I don't care what you would go with. And I'm not sure what you mean by absolutism. If absolutism is taking what is actually written, then I'm an absolutionist.

All other laws have to be taken as they are written exactly. You know that. You were a cop. if you ever arrested somebody for possession of a banned substance or object, that substance or object had to be what was written in the penal law. It had to be absolute. It's either crack or it isn't. The barrel is 16 inches or it isn't. There is no latitude.

Why is the Second Amendment different?

 

[Truebeliever]

I edited to include short barreled shotguns. It didn't get quoted in your reply.

I think the court was wrong on Miller but it goes back to that “open carry” thing. Or fair warning.

That’s why the tax on it. Could the state ban it as they have. That would be a different argument as to what the standard is. Was a short barrel common? I don’t know.
But it’s not a short barrel shotgun if it was made without a shoulder stock right( I don’t know the federal definition) but like a handgun.

And if SHTF happens where you rose up against the tyrant government, getting caught after you used a hacksaw would not be your biggest problem. But you could have the hacksaw and have the shotgun before hand right?

I don’t know about it.

 

[Truebeliever]

I don't care what you would go with. And I'm not sure what you mean by absolutism. If absolutism is taking what is actually written, then I'm an absolutionist.

All other laws have to be taken as they are written exactly. You know that. You were a cop. if you ever arrested somebody for possession of a banned substance or object, that substance or object had to be what was written in the penal law. It had to be absolute. It's either crack or it isn't. The barrel is 16 inches or it isn't. There is no latitude.

Why is the Second Amendment different?

So if you are saying the 2nd admendment is no different than the first then you are saying there can be restrictions on it because there are restrictions on the 1st.

And if you believe there should be no restrictions on either because it’s not mentioned in the constitution then you are saying child porn is constitutionally protected.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So if you are saying the 2nd admendment is no different than the first then you are saying there can be restrictions on it because there are restrictions on the 1st.

And if you believe there should be no restrictions on either because it’s not mentioned in the constitution then you are saying child porn is constitutionally protected.

There aren't supposed to be restrictions on the first either.

Yes. Posting it it's supposed to be legal. However child porn in itself is illegal. I don't understand what you're not getting.

 

[FrankenCub]

I guarantee just as NY no grandfathering of standard capacity mags. Even SCOTUS will use common use for 10 round mags, as they are in common use. But so are 30 round. But, they'll deem 30 round mags as excessive and ripe for regulation. Just another chip out of the 2nd. The only way SCOTUS is going to help the 2nd is if they get a majority of Constitutionalists on board. Never happen.

 

[Truebeliever]

There aren't supposed to be restrictions on the first either.

So you are saying child porn is constitutionally protected. Slander and liable are constitutionally protected as well.

 

[nortatoga]

I guarantee just as NY no grandfathering of standard capacity mags. Even SCOTUS will use common use for 10 round mags, as they are in common use. But so are 30 round. But, they'll deem 30 round mags as excessive and ripe for regulation. Just another chip out of the 2nd. The only way SCOTUS is going to help the 2nd is if they get a majority of Constitutionalists on board. Never happen.

Yes and it looks to be moving in that direction (I hope!!) If Hillary had won I wouldn't even bother with this conversation!

 

[Marine Cpl]

So you are saying child porn is constitutionally protected. Slander and liable are constitutionally protected as well.

Child porn in itself is not constitutionally protected.

Here's an analogy. Killing is illegal. I'm free to talk about it. I can even post myself in a video killing someone. The charge shouldn't be that I posted it. It should be that I killed someone. Apply the same thing to child porn.

 

[FrankenCub]

Yes and it looks to be moving in that direction (I hope!!) If Hillary had won I wouldn't even bother with this conversation!

Did you read my comment? I wasn't inferring that SCOTUS would help us, only deem 30 round mags as a reasonable to restrict and subject the whole country to 10 round mags. They wont even take an "assault rifle" case. Which quite honestly, I'm glad they don't because you bet your ass they'll deem them reasonable to ban.

 

[nortatoga]

Child porn in itself is not constitutionally protected.

Here's an analogy. Killing is illegal. I'm free to talk about it. I can even post myself in a video killing someone. The charge shouldn't be that I posted it. It should be that I killed someone. Apply the same thing to child porn.

Posting child pron and victimize the child over and over again is okay with you?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Did you read my comment? I wasn't inferring that SCOTUS would help us, only deem 30 round mags as a reasonable to restrict and subject the whole country to 10 round mags. They wont even take an "assault rifle" case. Which quite honestly, I'm glad they don't because you bet your ass they'll deem them reasonable to ban.

And then 50 years from now some guy named Southatoga will go on droning about how in the past, pistol grips were banned. He will quote the law and then quote the ruling that allowed the law to stand that was written by Justice Chelsea Clinton.

He will be arguing with everyone on his forum and tell them that they need to get educated.

 

[nortatoga]

Did you read my comment? I wasn't inferring that SCOTUS would help us, only deem 30 round mags as a reasonable to restrict and subject the whole country to 10 round mags. They wont even take an "assault rifle" case. Which quite honestly, I'm glad they don't because you bet your ass they'll deem them reasonable to ban.

The Court not taking any 2A case's before Kavanaugh I believe was right as there was no way to know how Kennedy would rule! I still would rather see one more as I am starting to wonder about Roberts.

 

[Truebeliever]

Child porn in itself is not constitutionally protected.

Here's an analogy. Killing is illegal. I'm free to talk about it. I can even post myself in a video killing someone. The charge shouldn't be that I posted it. It should be that I killed someone. Apply the same thing as child porn.

Again, child porn is the use of the press. It can not be “abridged “ yet it is illegal to possess it, publish it and spread it.

R Kelly , the singer, had sex with a 15 year old girl who refused to cooperate. They did not charge him with statory rape but possession of child porn. It was on the internet and people would tell me that they saw the video. I told them mere possession of it was illegal and that is what Kelly got charged with.

Before the federal law, Phil Donahue showed it on his TV show with parts blacked out. He could not do that today.

If the NY TImes published it, you possessed it and didn’t destroy it or turn it in and kept it, you could be charged with possessing child porn. Even if it was national paper.

Most child molesters with kiddie porn aren’t the ones who made it, they pass it to each other. Mere possession is illegal

 

[Marine Cpl]

Again, child porn is the use of the press. It can not be “abridged “ yet it is illegal to possess it, publish it and spread it.

R Kelly , the singer, had sex with a 15 year old girl who refused to cooperate. They did not charge him with statory rape but possession of child porn. It was on the internet and people would tell me that they saw the video. I told them mere possession of it was illegal and that is what Kelly got charged with.

Before the federal law, Phil Donahue showed it on his TV show with parts blacked out. He could not do that today.

If the NY TImes published it, you possessed it and didn’t destroy it or turn it in and kept it, you could be charged with possessing child porn. Even if it was national paper.

Most child molesters with kiddie porn aren’t the ones who made it, they pass it to each other. Mere possession is illegal

I disagree with that. The act of child porn in itself should be illegal. But as per the Constitution you should be allowed to post it. Most won't because child porn is disgusting and immoral. But it's no worse than torturing a kid with battery acid. That's illegal too and it's no worse than child porn.

You can't pick and choose on what you're okay with. A right is a right whether bad or good.