BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
That's not a set of dice I'm willing to roll because I think you're dead wrong about Trump.
House Introduces 'Assault Weapons' Ban, 10-Day Waiting Period, NFA Requirement for Rifles
- Thread starter Jmac00
- Start date
That's not a set of dice I'm willing to roll because I think you're dead wrong about Trump.
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
Well that's what a lot of people said before the 2016 election when I forcasted a Trump win 3 months ahead of it.
People and money are like Bread and butter. The entire Dem platform is predicated on FREEBIES. I hope they keep talking up FREE>>>FREE>>>FREE....so the working man and the rich send them down to an embarrassing defeat. The rich alone will not support their pockets being picked.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Read your signature.
The concealed carry of weapons prohibited is not from Scalie as I have posted it was from a 101 year old opinion of the Court, Roberts v Baldwin the Court can't overlook previous opinions. So that is not a trojan horse. If that is not it please clarify if is another part?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Again, I say read your signature.
Then it's the felons and mentally ill prohibition?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
Deplorable Me
.577 Tyrannosaur.
From Miller v United States.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Another bad decision from your beloved court.
Read the case it is very interesting and could not be ruled any other way as the defendant did not show in Court. And it was also before the individual right was established and 2A was incorporated.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The court giving legitimacy to the NFA allowing them to tax a right is all that I have to read about that case.
Uzi
.308 Win
For those that keep mentioning things like "good" and "it's about time", Nothing is good about any of it, and NO, it's NOT going to happen. You should know by now that they pick at it a little at a time, Because that's guaranteed to work 100%. They're very well in tune with how to flush away the second amendment and disarm us. This is all part of the game and a shot in the dark. They're not clueless about implementing these things. Don't get too happy and excited, It's not going to end the way you want it to. These people are professionals of corruption.
Different Drummer
.44 mag
Thank you,. I have long been frustrated by titles that say nothing about what the thread discussion will or should be about.
Had to say it. That has long been one of my most irritating peeves.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
We might be talking past each other.
I have very little doubt he would sign it if those two shitheads put it on his desk.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
then they base there crap on a bad opinion and repeat it and repeat it .. and still pass bad judgement .. guess we should just give up since we can't call out a bad opinion and ruling and change it ..
the 2A is not limited .. because of a few words right at the end ..
want to limit the 2A .. hold a convention of states and change it to Shall be Limited ..
Voting .. nothing there .. so limited .. which it is , age . BUT!! can't tax it , ( IE NFA ITEMS ... gotta pay a tax for a RIGHT) , they piss a fit about voter id's
ect ..
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
"From Heller v DC
QUOTE [ (2] Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. " note the period .. from @nortatoga signature ..
that quote has nothing to do with anything after that period .. period ..
that is the Trojan Horse issue in Heller
QUOTE [ (2] Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. " note the period .. from @nortatoga signature ..
that quote has nothing to do with anything after that period .. period ..
that is the Trojan Horse issue in Heller
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I've showed him other amendments in the bill of rights that are limited with specific language unlike the 2nd but he doesn't care. He likes defending the government.
Perhaps he agrees with them.
Perhaps he agrees with them.
Not a huge fan of Heller either...
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
I do agree with this statement. Nothing in our Constitution is unlimited. The problem with this, along with almost all rulings; these Justices are ALL afraid to really say what they mean and they leave more to interpretation than the original case brought in front of them.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Amendment II
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.
I see no limitations there.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I see limitations there.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I see limitations there.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I see limitations there.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Our Bill of Rights were modeled after English law. Now notice how the British version of the 2nd Amendment is written.
"Subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”
Notice how our Founders did not place that limitation "as allowed by law" in our 2nd Amendment but placed it in our 3rd Amendment. Clearly they wanted to place limitations on our 3rd Amendment by copying that phrase into it. If they wanted limitations on our 2nd Amendment, they would have wrote it similarly but instead they wrote, "Shall not be infringed."
Any person with a descent command of the English language can see that and back then, the citizenry had long guns, machine guns, artillery, and grenades. If they wanted limitations on those, they would have put that phrase in it.
"Subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”
Notice how our Founders did not place that limitation "as allowed by law" in our 2nd Amendment but placed it in our 3rd Amendment. Clearly they wanted to place limitations on our 3rd Amendment by copying that phrase into it. If they wanted limitations on our 2nd Amendment, they would have wrote it similarly but instead they wrote, "Shall not be infringed."
Any person with a descent command of the English language can see that and back then, the citizenry had long guns, machine guns, artillery, and grenades. If they wanted limitations on those, they would have put that phrase in it.
Last edited:
I see you also don't understand how Court rulings work.
Until a SCOTUS ruling/opinion is challenged and over ruled all case's after it must follow it! So yes they must repeat it and repeat it!
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I see you also don't understand how corruption works.
Think about how the Incorporation of the 2A (2010) throws a a big bucket of ice cold water on your arguments.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I feel the time for solving things through legislation is over. It's only working for one side. One side has to make the other side not want to even think about messing with the other and be left alone. I'll let you interpret that any way you please.
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."