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.
I believe that was the argument the Democrats used after the GOP House adopted a bill to make lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure on January 26, 1922.
Everyone knows a felon cannot posses a firearm ever. In fact their house is subject to search and seizure of firearms at any time in their life if they commit a felony.
Doesn't say a word in the constitution about that. They can limit/regulate your firearms any time they want to.
ANY time and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
This post is old and maybe it's been covered but the Constitution does cover this.
The 14th Amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
They can not limit your rights to firearms any time they want. They only can after going through the process for any particular individual.
Hey Freedom is not safe.. no one said it was, is, or ever will be, but it is far better to suffer from too much freedom and liberty then to little.
That's the exact same thing as saying "Oh it's better to be shot than lynched. Better to be killed instantly then to suffer until the end!"
Makes NO sense whatsoever. You still have the right to own firearms, you still have the right to buy ammo, you still have the right to have as big a collection as you want.
....
Makes NO sense whatsoever. You still have the right to own firearms, you still have the right to buy ammo, you still have the right to have as big a collection as you want.
Why this doesn't satisfy you is beyond me.
I have the right to own firearms as long as they fit into specific categories that you or someone you allow to be in charge says are OK to own. I can buy ammo as long as the caliber and type fit into the narrow scope that you or someone you allow to be in charge says are OK to own. I can own as many guns until you or someone you allow to be in charge becomes scared of me.
What are your limits? I know you are not for full-auto but what about semi-auto? If that is OK, what your magazine limits? Do you have any caliber restrictions? Are belt-fed firearms allowed in your world?
I have the right to own firearms as long as they fit into specific categories that you or someone you allow to be in charge says are OK to own. I can buy ammo as long as the caliber and type fit into the narrow scope that you or someone you allow to be in charge says are OK to own. I can own as many guns until you or someone you allow to be in charge becomes scared of me.
None of what you are saying makes any sense. Can you or can you not still purchase fire arms? Ammo? As many as you want?
Quote:
What are your limits? I know you are not for full-auto but what about semi-auto? If that is OK, what your magazine limits? Do you have any caliber restrictions? Are belt-fed firearms allowed in your world?
I'm only familiar with the 9mm, M16, and 12-gauge shotgun since that's what I was around a lot of the time during my service in the US Navy. Outside of that, firearms do not interest me.
The right to free speech and the right to bear arms are two completely different beasts. Same for the 4th amendment. They can't be compared because they're different issues altogether. I can see what you were going for, but it doesn't work. Sorry.
You have no need for a minigun. The average American doesn't need a minigun because guess what will happen eventually? Criminals will get their hands on them and terrorize a town, or rob a bank, or cause senseless death and violence. You really want to a own a minigun that bad?
This is why no regulations will every be agreed upon. Right here you are saying that you agree that people may own guns as long as they are the ones you approve of. You might not go to the extreme's of others but if restrictions were allowed many would then go for restrictions that would go much further than you would.
This is why no regulations will every be agreed upon. Right here you are saying that you agree that people may own guns as long as they are the ones you approve of. You might not go to the extreme's of others but if restrictions were allowed many would then go for restrictions that would go much further than you would.
I don't make the law so I'm not saying people may own guns as long as they are ones I approve of.
The only thing I've consistently said this entire time was that the average American has no need to own a minigun. Am I going to go to extreme lengths to enforce this? Nope. That's just my personal opinion, no more no less.
Buy a minigun for all I care, it just means it's compensation for something or that all the screws in that person's head are knocked loose. The 2nd Amendment isn't ironclad or bulletproof, ironically enough.
I don't make the law so I'm not saying people may own guns as long as they are ones I approve of.
The only thing I've consistently said this entire time was that the average American has no need to own a minigun. Am I going to go to extreme lengths to enforce this? Nope. That's just my personal opinion, no more no less.
While you are giving your opinion, what about cars? Since full-auto is the extreme of the gun market, should people be able to own a Ferarri or Lambo? Why would someone want to own a car that goes close to 200mph when the fastest legal speed is around 80mph? You know someone will take it out on the interstate and drive it at 120+mph without proper training and end up killing someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
Buy a minigun for all I care, it just means it's compensation for something or that all the screws in that person's head are knocked loose. The 2nd Amendment isn't ironclad or bulletproof, ironically enough.
Compensation? What about projection? You can't understand why someone would want something therefore they should not have it. Do you feel that guys driving sports cars are compensating for something as well? What about women and guns? What are they compensating for? Or maybe they are just interested in them.
BASE jumpers are completely nuts in my opinion. I can't fathom why someone would jump off a cliff and risk death. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider even suggesting they be stopped. I've seen interviews with them and I admire the passion they have for a sport.
Jay Leno has 200+ cars. Why? He is a car nut. I've read his articles in Popular Mechanics and seen him on TV shows about cars. I see him talking with reverence about the history of whatever car is the subject. His admiration of the engineering and the history that went into that model. I'm not a car guy. I could never do that. My neighbor who has two hand built hot rods could. He's the car guy. My other neighbor is the woodworker. I'm the gun guy. (I'm also the home theater and car audio guy as well)
The Second Amendment is "bulletproof". '...shall not be infringed' is as straightforward as you can get. In fact, there's isn't another Amendment that is as clearly off limits to lawmakers.
I don't make the law so I'm not saying people may own guns as long as they are ones I approve of.
The only thing I've consistently said this entire time was that the average American has no need to own a minigun.
As has been pointed out hundreds of times, there are 100's of things American's don't have an absolute need to do but are allowed to do it anyway.
Quote:
Am I going to go to extreme lengths to enforce this? Nope. That's just my personal opinion, no more no less.
Buy a minigun for all I care, it just means it's compensation for something or that all the screws in that person's head are knocked loose. The 2nd Amendment isn't ironclad or bulletproof, ironically enough.
Well, I had no idea what you were talking about so I had to look it up. I imagine it would be fun to shoot.
That's the exact same thing as saying "Oh it's better to be shot than lynched. Better to be killed instantly then to suffer until the end!"
Makes NO sense whatsoever. You still have the right to own firearms, you still have the right to buy ammo, you still have the right to have as big a collection as you want.
Why this doesn't satisfy you is beyond me.
Ok I never said that and anyone who does is a moron.
No My rights are being infringed upon, and the fact you cant see this makes no difference to the fullrepeal of the Hughes Amendment, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The National Firearms Act of 1934.
“The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.”---John Hay,
So I should be satisfied with the weapons I am allowed to buy, and not want to fully excise my rights? My rights that be been infringement upon?
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.
