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.
See, this is what I mean by changing the very amendment from the bench.
The second amendment clearly states it is the people that have the right to militia, not the state. the people are to secure a free state. the 10th amendment has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. it is stated who the militia is and that they have the right to keep and bear arms. the 10th states if it isn't covered in the document, it is left to the states. it is covered and not left to the states.
The reason I mentioned the 10th amendment was because of this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Actually that won't happen because by making bullets unaffordable for many, you are indeed infringing on their 2nd amendment rights as well as 14th ammendent "equal protection" clause
I was responding to that poster and stated that if 'equal protection' was a factor there is no way that bail could be set that allows one person to walk out of jail and another to stay there based on nothing more than how much money they have. Same with guns, just because a tax would make a gun unaffordable to some people does not make the tax unconstitutional.
And it's clear from recent cases that types of ammo can be regulated, and you have failed to provide any evidence that ammunition couldn't be subject to a special tax or other regulation, so, I rest my case.
You're free to vote next election as long as you pass the background for the approved #2 voting pencil...
the 10th amendment cannot apply to the 2nd amendment, if you read the 10th amendment.
I wish you would just come out and say it. Any and all restrictions on any firearm ownership by either state or federal government is unconstitutional by your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Let's get the real agenda out in the open.
It's not about taking away peoples guns. It's not about banning certain weapons. for you it's all about any restriction, reasonable or not being placed on any gun, any person or any district. This you believe to be against the original intent of the 2nd and is infringement.
IMHO, the people who instantly scream that liberals, Obama, the state, the Feds, or whoever are always one step away from taking everyone's guns away, will never admit to the fact that what their real agenda is, is removing any and all restrictions on any weapon and any attempt to place any restriction whatsoever is infringement.
I wish you would just come out and say it. Any and all restrictions on any firearm ownership by either state or federal government is unconstitutional by your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Let's get the real agenda out in the open.
It's not about taking away peoples guns. It's not about banning certain weapons. for you it's all about any restriction, reasonable or not being placed on any gun, any person or any district. This you believe to be against the original intent of the 2nd and is infringement.
IMHO, the people who instantly scream that liberals, Obama, the state, the Feds, or whoever are always one step away from taking everyone's guns away, will never admit to the fact that what their real agenda is, is removing any and all restrictions on any weapon and any attempt to place any restriction whatsoever is infringement.
I wish you would just come out and say it. Any and all restrictions on any firearm ownership by either state or federal government is unconstitutional by your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Let's get the real agenda out in the open.
It's not about taking away peoples guns. It's not about banning certain weapons. for you it's all about any restriction, reasonable or not being placed on any gun, any person or any district. This you believe to be against the original intent of the 2nd and is infringement.
IMHO, the people who instantly scream that liberals, Obama, the state, the Feds, or whoever are always one step away from taking everyone's guns away, will never admit to the fact that what their real agenda is, is removing any and all restrictions on any weapon and any attempt to place any restriction whatsoever is infringement.
There were no restriction then and there shall not be any restrictions now.
The amendment never changed, from the day it was signed as the agreement.
bentbow, i know we have had this discussion before, and the fact that you are wrong doesnt seem to matter to you. ANY amendment can be repealed. all that needs to happen is 2/3rd of each house of congress to vote for an amendment that says "the second amendment is hereby repealed", give some specifics, and then they need to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify such an amendment, and once done then the second amendment is thus repealed.
and the supreme court would uphold such an amendment to the constitution, just like it id the 18th amendment, just like it did the 17th amendment, and just like it did the 16th amendment.
that said, i seriously doubt that any movement to repeal the second amendment would get out of the starting blocks. i dont see either house of congress even considering such an amendment in the foreseeable future. in fact i think ANY congressman that even suggested such an amendment would likely be bounced from office by the voters in the very next election, with few exceptions.
^^^3/4 of the people in the USA would need to agree to this.
I wish you would just come out and say it. Any and all restrictions on any firearm ownership by either state or federal government is unconstitutional by your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Let's get the real agenda out in the open.
It's not about taking away peoples guns. It's not about banning certain weapons. for you it's all about any restriction, reasonable or not being placed on any gun, any person or any district. This you believe to be against the original intent of the 2nd and is infringement.
IMHO, the people who instantly scream that liberals, Obama, the state, the Feds, or whoever are always one step away from taking everyone's guns away, will never admit to the fact that what their real agenda is, is removing any and all restrictions on any weapon and any attempt to place any restriction whatsoever is infringement.
List who, in your opinion, the people are who instantly scream as you stated above. This should prove interesting. Be very detailed, please.
I have no idea of what you are going on about here but, the progressive agenda is to remove free will. To undo humanity while leaving the human intact.
Elitists see any they feel inferior to themselves as nothing more than beasts of burden. They see 99% of us in this light.
The reason I mentioned the 10th amendment was because of this comment:
I was responding to that poster and stated that if 'equal protection' was a factor there is no way that bail could be set that allows one person to walk out of jail and another to stay there based on nothing more than how much money they have. Same with guns, just because a tax would make a gun unaffordable to some people does not make the tax unconstitutional.
Like Obamacare.
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.
