Cerulean Mutt
Mayor
Are the restrictions currently in place on the purchase and ownership of fully automatic weapons an infringement of your Second Amendment Rights?
Question for Constitutionalists:
- Thread starter Cerulean Mutt
- Start date
worldlymrb
Daddy
Yes, that is why our foreign financed federal govt is embolden to infringe not just the 2nd amendment, BUT ALL OF THEM!
Govt is GOD, and you do not regulate or deny God's right to rule over you.
Govt is GOD, and you do not regulate or deny God's right to rule over you.
Cerulean Mutt
Mayor
Another Constitutional Question:
Do slander laws infringe upon your First Amendment Rights?
Do slander laws infringe upon your First Amendment Rights?
amfh
Council Member
You beat me to it. No surface to air missiles or tanks, either.
I'd love to hear opinions on whether or not THESE "bans" are considered constitutional (or not). Anyone?
degsme
Council Member
Well you have disagreed as well. You have claimed that the licensing requirments for things like large bombs (Zazi) dirty bombs (Padilla) and nukes are not infringements.... You can't have it both ways.
worldlymrb
Daddy
Slander laws are almost always a civil case. And must be proved that LIES/disinformation was used to harm somebody's trade or reputation.
You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to bear arms in commission of a crime, or to take somebody's property. (Unless your a foreign financed govt of course)
Cerulean Mutt
Mayor
So Congress can place limits on your Constitional Rights without violating the Constituion?
Thanks for admitting it.
Thanks for admitting it.
worldlymrb
Daddy
Who do you think buys the almost $5T in UST's (Including ROLLOVER Debt), every year to finance the great ponzi economy?
(hint: It ain't 'we the people" and their compulsory SSI contributions)
REF:
IndependentinWis
Mayor
The NRA says yes. The NRA says that the language of the 2nd Amendment allows a citizen to own any weapon that is used by a member of a well regulated militis, meaning an infantryman in the Armed forces. So any weapon carried and used by a member of the Armed forces is allowable under the 2nd Amendment. The magic word according to what I heard from the NRA spokeman was any weapon that could be "carried" by an infantryman. So bazookas yes, artillary no. M-60's, yes, 50 cal machine guns, no. I think you get the idea. So your neighbor who you fight with about where you put your garbage out on collection day could hit your house real easliy with a hand held missle. Sounds like fun to me.
worldlymrb
Daddy
How so?
You have a right to own a gun, not KILL somebody with it, (unless self defense of course), or put a gun to somebody's head and rob them.
What you are admitting is the typical NAZI view that citizens have NO Rights and govt is above the laws and regulations set forth by the constitution.
Cerulean Mutt
Mayor
And the government can infringe upon your right to own a gun just as it can abridge your right to speak.
Or have you forgotten what exactly the First Amendment actually says?
Or have you forgotten what exactly the First Amendment actually says?
worldlymrb
Daddy
So what needs to be done is a honest discussion on how to AMEND or REPEAL 2nd amendment.
All it will require is congress pass a bill by 2/3 and have the styates ratify it with 3/4 majority.
Here is my version of an amendment to the 2nd.
"In order to have well regulated society, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be denied and infringed by executive order."
Forward!
Arkady
President
If this were really about the right of people to arm themselves in a way that lets them put up some credible resistance if our government were to become tyrannical, then it would be much less important to defend the right to have small arms than to defend the right to have high explosive, land mines, mortars, rockets, and surface-to-air missiles (typical weapons used by guerrilla resistances to make life tough for vastly more powerful militaries). But, let's be honest -- this isn't about creating an armed public capable of striking some fear into the hearts of the generals in the Pentagon. It's about letting men who are insecure in their masculinity pretend to be cowboys and soldiers.
Old Ridge Runner
Mayor
Not only that form of government, but the people who support that form of government.
ORR
NCmusicman
Governor
I can get a permit for an automatic weapon if I wanted one.... I don't want one. I have used them in the military, I see them on TV and in movies all the time... they are not a mystery to me. If you watch movies, you know as well as i do that parents let their young kids see the violent movies and we both know that Hollywood actors and actresses train kids to be cold bloodied killers... and we both know that taking MY guns from ME will not keep the criminals from getting them from a mexican drug cartel armed by Obama and Eric Holder... SO, what's your point?
amfh
Council Member
Well, according to this Alex Jones and many others, that is exactly what it is about
A quick google search of You Tube vids to illustrate the point:
https://www.youtube.com/results?q=2...al&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1
I hear this exact rationale all the time here in Texas. I've also been personally told by one guy here that YES, he ought to be allowed to have tanks, land mines, STA missiles. It's his 2nd Amendment right, after all!
Funny....not one PJ con has responded to my question. How about it, cons? Do you agree with the guy who told me he has the RIGHT to possess any type of weaponry?
Another comment: Do PJ cons hate General McChrystal now? Will the NRA start swift-boating him due to his comments about serious gun control?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html
