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.
So otherwise law-abiding citizens would become criminals by shooting gov't officials who have come, in a manner supported by the law, presumably, to confiscate their weaponry.
Nice.
You would need to re-write the constitution, Bill of rights, and get law enforcement and the military on board to conduct seizure. People already blat about what equipment the police have. We've had threads in here on the "militarization" of police forces and those same posters now would change their attitudes completely I'm sure. Because now a militarized police force works in their favor in their agenda.
Doubt me? Use the search function and ask those who were against police getting MRAPs SAW pouches, Plate Carriers and "tactical" equipment.
To this day, there are sheriff's not deputies, but sheriff's who do not and will not enforce Cuomos gun law portion of the Safe Act and he had a cry over it. I write the laws you can't pick and choose which ones to enforce
The day a proposed door to door seizure would happen... would be a day you don't want to be in America...
Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is the quantity per person specified, nor guaranteed. That opens the door for the Gov't to say, "Choose TWO of your current stash of arms to keep. We're taking the rest. Thus, we're still upholding your precious Amendment's right to keep and bear arms."
Are the liberals practicing today, to see how many times and how many ways they can be wrong in a 24-hour period?
OK, time for Govt 101 again.
The Constitution gives the Fed govt its powers. If power isn't named in the Constitution, the Fed govt can't have that power, but lower govts still can if they want it.
Nowhere does the Constitution say that govt can specify a limit to how many guns someone can have. That means govt CANNOT name any such limit.
In case that's not enough for you (with liberals it never is), the 2nd amendment says that govt cannot make any laws that infringe the people's right to own and carry a gun. That would include setting a limit on how many guns someone can have.
Are the liberals practicing today, to see how many times and how many ways they can be wrong in a 24-hour period?
OK, time for Govt 101 again.
The Constitution gives the Fed govt its powers. If power isn't named in the Constitution, the Fed govt can't have that power, but lower govts still can if they want it.
Nowhere does the Constitution say that govt can specify a limit to how many guns someone can have. That means govt CANNOT name any such limit.
In case that's not enough for you (with liberals it never is), the 2nd amendment says that govt cannot make any laws that infringe the people's right to own and carry a gun. That would include setting a limit on how many guns someone can have.
Anything else I can help you with?
well... you are only correct so long as the majority of the SCOTUS agrees with the precident and entire history of juris prudence of American Constitutional law. right now 5 of the 9 Justices do agree with that view.
BUT as soon as that flips then the minority dissent found in Heller will be the NEW constitutional reality. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote basically that "in order to maintain.... a militia" is the "operative clause" of the second, and this is satisfied by state national guard units.
If the court flips, the second amendment has no teeth and means absolutely nothing and YOU and I no longer have a constitutional right to own even a single shot .410
The Nazis leagally took jews away and burned them in ovens. they also legally cut their hair and made shirts out of it. they also skinned them and made lamp shades.... LEGALLY.
FDR put Japanese and German AMERICANS in internment camps....LEGALLY.
So otherwise law-abiding citizens would become criminals by shooting gov't officials who have come, in a manner supported by the law, presumably, to confiscate their weaponry.
Nice.
When you take away peoples Rights under the Constitution you no longer represent the lawful government, and yes, honest Americans will not stand by and just let them do it.
A secure government has no need to limit whatever kind and how many weapons a FREE citizen may own or carry anywhere they have a legal right to be. That is my idea of proper weapons control.I consider myself a Liberal. Liberal as based on Liberty.
Other side of the debate is you only need one to commit mass murder!
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.
