Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How funny you are. I post more wisdom in a single post that you have in the entire thread, and you find a way to demonstrate, for all to see, what is already wholly visible in your previous posts, and those posts were infantile, just so you know.
I hereby invite you to pose a grown-up response to that post, well.... if you are up to it.
I'll give you some more wisdom.
The founders used various words and language to protect rights. For example, "abridged". Among them, "infringed" is the most protective. Now tell me how, in light of that fact, you feel free to issue restriction after restriction on a right intended by the Founders to remain free from trespass even at the very outer margins? Construct some logic for me here. How does one do that?
I'll give you another thing to think about. Those who wish you harm, from the lowly two-bit street thug, to the most blood-thirsty member of ISIS, will come at you fully armed. You will either perish or defend yourself with force of arms.
You've mistaken me for an antigun proponent which I am not. I own several that I use for home defense should the need arise. I go to the gun range regularly to practice. I grew up with guns and know how to use them properly. Actually, I'm in favor of making it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain the weapon of their choice (within reason) for defense.
However, the issue raised in this thread was that the op is upset because he has to go through a few hoops to own the type of weapons he has. The government has the right and obligation to put restrictions on certain types of weaponry so it's more difficult for just anyone to obtain them. Most people don't want some joe off the street to be able to go into a gun store and pick up a fully automatic machine gun whenever he feels like it.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the second amendment does not preclude the regulation of firearms. Those decisions are not recent either. They date back to the 1800s. See "United States vs Cruikshank (1876)" as one of the first. If you feel the Supreme Court is not the interpreter of the law then who is? This is not something you can blame on a recent "liberal agenda". As you can see this has been the law for sime time now. Common sense gun regulations are necessary for a peaceful society as most would agree.
You've mistaken me for an antigun proponent which I am not. I own several that I use for home defense should the need arise. I go to the gun range regularly to practice. I grew up with guns and know how to use them properly. Actually, I'm in favor of making it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain the weapon of their choice (within reason) for defense.
However, the issue raised in this thread was that the op is upset because he has to go through a few hoops to own the type of weapons he has. The government has the right and obligation to put restrictions on certain types of weaponry so it's more difficult for just anyone to obtain them. Most people don't want some joe off the street to be able to go into a gun store and pick up a fully automatic machine gun whenever he feels like it.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the second amendment does not preclude the regulation of firearms. Those decisions are not recent either. They date back to the 1800s. See "United States vs Cruikshank (1876)" as one of the first. If you feel the Supreme Court is not the interpreter of the law then who is? This is not something you can blame on a recent "liberal agenda". As you can see this has been the law for sime time now. Common sense gun regulations are necessary for a peaceful society as most would agree.
The Supreme Court also took that power upon itself with no Constitutional authorization power. All legislative power is with the Congress, ergo the making of "new law" or rulings with the effect of law violates that Constitution.
The Courts are there to try cases, not make law. That is another issue that needs to be resolved. There is not a lot of "interpretation" required in something as simple as Amendment 2. "Not be infringed" is pretty simple.
The Supreme Court is 7 people, unelected, who server or life, and you approve of them making law via "interpretation" until the case law is contrary, wholly, to the base law passed by Congress or the Const. Convention? Really? How does that idea, or its support, fit into a Constitutional Republic and "Democracy"
It is the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Tribunal. They have stolen, in part, your freedom, and you sit there clapping for them.
Your opinion (and it is contrary to documented fact) that gun regulations are necessary for a peaceful society has been destroyed by the facts over and over. Those area with the most stringent gun laws, end up with the worst crime rates, including murder, including murder by firearm.
There are so many laws on the books right now that no additional ones are needed, but the regulators always speaks as if their proposed gun laws are the very first one ever to be considered. Time after time, "we just need sensible gun laws". They get those laws and shortly thereater, "we just need some sensible gun laws" - Rinse and Repeat ad nauseum.
The intent of the Founders is clear, the rulings of the court are not in compliance with that expressed will of those who wrote the subject 'law'.
Another point of interest, J.N. Schulman, scholar and author on this subject, once an associate of mine, asked a UCLA English professor about the wording and structure of the 2nd Amendment, and it was confirmed that it conveys a personal right at the individual level. BTW, as per this professor, the word "Regulated" meant "equipped" or "provisioned" in that day and age. For example "John had a well-regulated larder with all the supplies necessary". It didn't mean then that it was subject to government regulation.
You are an enabler and fellow traveler for those who will strip you bare of all freedom, thread by thread by thread, and you applaud them as you are disrobed in slow motion. Sad.
I get what you're saying but in the end it's just an opinion with no legal backing. I have never heard of a case where the Supreme Court legislated a law. That's not within their power. I have, however, heard of them interpreting laws that sometimes get labeled as "legislation" because that person doesn't like the way it was interpreted.
The Supreme Court is the body we've created to determine whether laws enacted by Congress can pass the constitutional requirements needed to let them stand or not. Are you saying we should remove this segment of our system of checks and balances? If so, who would you like to take that role? Should Congress have the authority to pass legislation with no accountability to the Constitution and no oversight? Humans are fallible are prone to emotional justifications when considering such things as which laws to pass.
I get what you're saying but in the end it's just an opinion with no legal backing. I have never heard of a case where the Supreme Court legislated a law. That's not within their power. I have, however, heard of them interpreting laws that sometimes get labeled as "legislation" because that person doesn't like the way it was interpreted.
The Supreme Court is the body we've created to determine whether laws enacted by Congress can pass the constitutional requirements needed to let them stand or not. Are you saying we should remove this segment of our system of checks and balances? If so, who would you like to take that role? Should Congress have the authority to pass legislation with no accountability to the Constitution and no oversight? Humans are fallible are prone to emotional justifications when considering such things as which laws to pass.
The courts don't "legislate" laws, they issue rulings, which become case law, which they say (without any backing whatsoever by the Constitution, that they are binding "law" applicable throughout the jurisdiction of that court.
The Courts were set to try cases - nothing more, nothing less. In each and every case, the judges should refer back to the original law, and the original law alone. Instead they pile perversion after perversion on top of each other until their is little if any resemblance of case law to statute or Consitution.
Congress is accountable to the electorate, the Supreme Court is not accountable to a single human or other being in the entire Universe - zip, zero, nada. Nobody. The founders expressed that the Courts would be the weakest of the three branches, and they have granted for and to themselves veto power over everything, and the power to create law - case law, which is as binding as legislated law.
I strongly urge you to read the Constitution, especially the power of each branch, and see how far over the top we have gone. See if you see "the power to make binding case law" is an enumerated power of the Courts. It isn't there, they created that power and gave it to themselves, (7 unelected, life-tenure, out of touch, Ivory Tower attorneys). It's way too much power in way too few hands with way too little (zero) accountability to ANYONE and it is for LIFE.
Never said I was for mob rule but what I said is true. Regulation is part of our society. I'm not familiar with the examples you provided. Not saying they're not true but I've never heard of anyone being denied feeding the homeless.
Is Giving Food to the Homeless Illegal in Your City Too?
Last week, 90-year-old World War II veteran Arnold Abbott made national headlines when he got busted by cops in Fort Lauderdale, Florida twice in one week—for giving out food to homeless people. While serving a public meal on November 2, Abbott told the Sun-Sentinel, "a policeman pulled my arm and said, 'Drop that plate right now,' like it was a gun." Abbott runs a nonprofit group that regularly distributes food in city parks. Because of an ordinance the city passed this October that restricts feeding the homeless in public, his charity work is now potentially illegal.
Unpasteurized milk on the open market would quickly turn into a disaster when someone gets sick or dies from tainted milk.
So when someone gets sick or dies from pasteurized milk it isn't a disaster? Why?
Don't buy unpasteurized but don't force me to not buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
Common sense regulations are supported by a majority of the nation.
less is more imo.
Quit a bit of regulation isn't beneficial. Food - All it means is on one day the restaurant passed the inspection. So if you go into a diner and see a filthy bathroom and dirty silverware you can just wrap yourself up in the health code certificate and chow down?
Can't have a garden in your front yard. Can't dig a pond on your property.
Is Giving Food to the Homeless Illegal in Your City Too?
Last week, 90-year-old World War II veteran Arnold Abbott made national headlines when he got busted by cops in Fort Lauderdale, Florida twice in one week—for giving out food to homeless people. While serving a public meal on November 2, Abbott told the Sun-Sentinel, "a policeman pulled my arm and said, 'Drop that plate right now,' like it was a gun." Abbott runs a nonprofit group that regularly distributes food in city parks. Because of an ordinance the city passed this October that restricts feeding the homeless in public, his charity work is now potentially illegal.
So when someone gets sick or dies from pasteurized milk it isn't a disaster? Why?
Don't buy unpasteurized but don't force me to not buy it.
less is more imo.
Quit a bit of regulation isn't beneficial. Food - All it means is on one day the restaurant passed the inspection. So if you go into a diner and see a filthy bathroom and dirty silverware you can just wrap yourself up in the health code certificate and chow down?
Can't have a garden in your front yard. Can't dig a pond on your property.
Open carry, ends the bully cop syndrome.
There are similar laws and the charity comes in armed to feed the homeless. No cops show up.
People have a right to protect their property and their persons.
Even against statists who hate private business as well as their wards and dependents BUTAGAIN Constitutional rights are not unlimited (can't yell fire in a movie theater and say freedom of speech).
"People ask, why in a modern civilized society do private citizens need to own firearms? Well, here's a great example. The police were no where to be found, mobs with bricks, bottles, and pipes were looting and burning stores, especially Korean owned stores. Some people were beaten then had their businesses destroyed. Others fled the area and found their stores destroyed when they returned days later. Few stood their ground and were willing to defend the businesses that their families built.
The store survived the riots and the building still stands 20 years later at Western and 5th."
Get a Firearms Dealers license and there ya go, delivered right to your front door.
Really? I can hunt fish or grow anything on my property, I thought you lived right next to a large area of forest and federal land? Not sure what State you live in but here in Texas none of those things are applicable unless you live inside a major city and even then not all applies. You do know that there are ways to change State and Local laws, right?
nfa34 is an infringment. the feds lied to win their case. if they would have told the truth in usvmiller, they would have lost.
if they would have lost, then liberals would have no firearms laws on any books right now.
I like sideshow's like the OP due to the distraction factor they provide. I have never had any problem doing anything I want, legal or illegal. I alone determine my "freedom". As long as the good, wholesome Patriot bunch keep banging their pots and pans and blowing their kazoo's in public, it leaves the rest of us to fly under the radar undetected and enjoying the unlimited freedom we make for ourselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? 
