It won’t End with “ARs.”

[TurtleDude]

Gun Legislation is/can be completely Constitutional.

that's as worthless as saying "Laws are constitutional"

bans are not constitutional nor is imposing 1934 NFA idiocy on commonly owned guns

let it be said-the 1934 NFA is clearly unconstitutional to anyone who actual is honest

 

[Irwin Corey]

that's as worthless as saying "Laws are constitutional"

bans are not constitutional nor is imposing 1934 NFA idiocy on commonly owned guns

let it be said-the 1934 NFA is clearly unconstitutional to anyone who actual is honest

Surprise - we disagree.

 

[TurtleDude]

Surprise - we disagree.

of course, I am right, you are wrong. Its patently obvious you want to harass lawful gun owners. Do you really believe that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow crap like the NFA?

 

[Irwin Corey]

of course, I am right, you are wrong. Its patently obvious you want to harass lawful gun owners. Do you really believe that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow crap like the NFA?

Nope, but I'll tell you what you are going forward ... ignored.

 

[Casper]

history suggests less than 20% of legal owners would do that and none of the felons

Hence why I asked the question, and we know, at least among those here, that it will never work, way too much Freedom on the mind at work among some, I like that...................

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope, but I'll tell you what you are going forward ... ignored.

I guess that is a good thing for you. Its pretty obvious what your goal is

 

[justabubba]

Tell that to a Sihk or a Gurka or any of the other religious organization that requires them to be armed with a dagger or knife or whathaveyou. Most of them know how to use their weapon of choice quite well.

It's about respect and whether it's reciprocal or not. The armed tend to not respect the unarmed.

The gun is the great equalizer, it knows no color or creed or age, pretty much anyone can use one and defend themselves or provide for themselves by hunting.

People who are armed tend not to be screwed with. People respect the armed out of necessity, to not, is to invite trouble of the variety that may not be able to be handled. You can call the armed, ******s and scared all you want, but you are gonna respect them and not **** with them if you value your well being.

[emphasis added by bubba to make this rather obvious point]

it should have been extremely apparent from my post that i have no respect for persons who are such scared ******s they must arm themselves only because they are afraid of some misperceived omnipresent danger

i will not initiate confrontation with these well armed cowards, but their possession of a weapon does not cause me to slink away from responding to their physical engagement. such ammosexuals are fearful of having their ass beat, which is - again - why they must parade around with their lethal substitutes for a working penis

 

[TurtleDude]

[emphasis added by bubba to make this rather obvious point]

it should have been extremely apparent from my post that i have no respect for persons who are such scared ******s they must arm themselves only because they are afraid of some misperceived omnipresent danger

i will not initiate confrontation with these well armed cowards, but their possession of a weapon does not cause me to slink away from responding to their physical engagement. such ammosexuals are fearful of having their ass beat, which is - again - why they must parade around with their lethal substitutes for a working penis

and you think they want us to believe their desires to ban guns is because they don't like armed criminals.

 

[justabubba]

that's as worthless as saying "Laws are constitutional"

bans are not constitutional nor is imposing 1934 NFA idiocy on commonly owned guns

let it be said-the 1934 NFA is clearly unconstitutional to anyone who actual is honest

[emphasis by bubba of a ridiculous statement from an officer of the court]

you can let it be said all you want, but as an attorney, should you not be able to recognize that this has been established law for 84 years

you wound your tattered credibility not only as a forum meber, but as a self-purported lawyer, when posting such stupid, unsustainable statements. it reminds me of someone throwing rocks at a stop sign. enough with the emotional vitriol and instead begin sharing something of factual substance

 

[justabubba]

of course, I am right, you are wrong. Its patently obvious you want to harass lawful gun owners. Do you really believe that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow crap like the NFA?

you continue to ignore the included expression "well regulated"

 

[TurtleDude]

[emphasis by bubba of a ridiculous statement from an officer of the court]

you can let it be said all you want, but as an attorney, should you not be able to recognize that this has been established law for 84 years

you wound your tattered credibility not only as a forum meber, but as a self-purported lawyer, when posting such stupid, unsustainable statements. it reminds me of someone throwing rocks at a stop sign. enough with the emotional vitriol and instead begin sharing something of factual substance

so tell us justabubba-why is this law not a violation of "shall not be infringed"

tell us why the commerce clause was properly allowed to supersede an amendment.

and when you start talking about penises when we are discussing guns, it shows how truly pathetic your argument is and how truly hateful you are towards gun owners. Its clearly pathological in nature

 

[TurtleDude]

you continue to ignore the included expression "well regulated"

so you pretend "well regulated" refers to the citizens -you are telling us that part of the bill of rights actually EXPANDS the power of the federal government. DO you realize how incredibly idiotic that is

 

[justabubba]

so tell us justabubba-why is this law not a violation of "shall not be infringed"

tell us why the commerce clause was properly allowed to supersede an amendment.

and when you start talking about penises when we are discussing guns, it shows how truly pathetic your argument is and how truly hateful you are towards gun owners. Its clearly pathological in nature

you personally have an arsenal of arms
that you do not possess a sawed off shotgun and/or a machine gun did not in any way infringe on your right to continue to bear arms. as you have repeatedly informed us, you have lots of them
thus, your right has not infringed by such narrowly tailored regulation
an attorney should be able to comprehend that
go ask one

 

[justabubba]

so you pretend "well regulated" refers to the citizens -you are telling us that part of the bill of rights actually EXPANDS the power of the federal government. DO you realize how incredibly idiotic that is

it refers to the militia that are expected to bear such well regulated arms

 

[TurtleDude]

you personally have an arsenal of arms
that you do not possess a sawed off shotgun and/or a machine gun did not in any way infringe on your right to continue to bear arms. as you have repeatedly informed us, you have lots of them
thus, your right has not infringed by such narrowly tailored regulation
an attorney should be able to comprehend that
go ask one

your idiotic claims are just that. My rights are infringed because I cannot buy a modern machine gun when the second amendment clearly protects my right to do so. I get tired of the attitude that I don't NEED something and banning that is not an infringement. There was no valid reason for the ban, It was improperly enacted by spiteful scumbags who were mad that a pro gun bill was going to pass. Your hatred of gun owners is well documented and its because you are mad gun owners often defeat the socialist scum you want in office.

 

[TurtleDude]

it refers to the militia that are expected to bear such well regulated arms

you're lying. not even the anti gun justices are making such idiotic claims. the militia was well regulated meaning it was to be in good working order. You are just blatantly lying now

 

[justabubba]

your idiotic claims are just that. My rights are infringed because I cannot buy a modern machine gun when the second amendment clearly protects my right to do so. I get tired of the attitude that I don't NEED something and banning that is not an infringement. There was no valid reason for the ban, It was improperly enacted by spiteful scumbags who were mad that a pro gun bill was going to pass. Your hatred of gun owners is well documented and its because you are mad gun owners often defeat the socialist scum you want in office.

yes, and your right to free speech is violated because you cannot falsely scream "fire" in a public place to initiate panic

go ask a first year law student which one of us is correct

but then why would you believe them; you refuse to believe the legitimacy of a law the supreme court has left standing since 1934

 

[justabubba]

you're lying. not even the anti gun justices are making such idiotic claims. the militia was well regulated meaning it was to be in good working order. You are just blatantly lying now

in the early days of the militia, they were compelled to possess specified weapons with a specified amount of shot and powder

the militias' guns have been regulated from the outset of the Constitution

 

[ecofarm]

you're lying. not even the anti gun justices are making such idiotic claims. the militia was well regulated meaning it was to be in good working order. You are just blatantly lying now

"Militia, meaning government troops(?), are to bear well regulated arms".

Well regulated arms.

:lamo

Someone's pulling your leg.

 

[ecofarm]

in the early days of the militia, they were compelled to possess specified weapons with a specified amount of shot and powder

the militias' guns have been regulated from the outset of the Constitution

So the second is really about arms rooms in the military being well regulated?

 

[TurtleDude]

yes, and your right to free speech is violated because you cannot falsely scream "fire" in a public place to initiate panic

go ask a first year law student which one of us is correct

but then why would you believe them; you refuse to believe the legitimacy of a law the supreme court has left standing since 1934

you're unable to understand that yelling fire in crowded theater is equivalent to SHOOTING a gun in a theater. You confuse USE vs POSSESSION. you can SHOUT fire if there is one or if there is no one to panic. Thus your stupid analogy sucks. You want to ban people from merely owning some firearms rather than preventing HARMFUL USE =. You get schooled on this and how stupid your analogy is and yet you seem unable to learn

 

[TurtleDude]

in the early days of the militia, they were compelled to possess specified weapons with a specified amount of shot and powder

the militias' guns have been regulated from the outset of the Constitution

your understanding of the constitution is below that of amphibians

 

[TurtleDude]

in the early days of the militia, they were compelled to possess specified weapons with a specified amount of shot and powder

the militias' guns have been regulated from the outset of the Constitution

justabubba thinks the second amendment was a vehicle to give the federal government more power

 

[justabubba]

justabubba thinks the second amendment was a vehicle to give the federal government more power

justabubba has written for himself what he thinks about this issue
the forum members can read it for themselves
why would turtledude, someone who pretends to know what i belive when it differs from what i actually believe, then be capable of writing positions for me that i did not post and do not hold
td, respond to my actual posts, my own written positions ... not those you wish i had posted because they would be easier for you to argue against
in short, what turtledude has posted above is another one of his many lies
enough of your weasel words, turtledude

 

[TurtleDude]

justabubba has written for himself what he thinks about this issue
the forum members can read it for themselves
why would turtledude, someone who pretends to know what i belive when it differs from what i actually believe, then be capable of writing positions for me that i did not post and do not hold
td, respond to my actual posts, my own written positions ... not those you wish i had posted because they would be easier for you to argue against
in short, what turtledude has posted above is another one of his many lies
enough of your weasel words, turtledude

justabubba proves he is either completely clueless about constitutional theory and scholarship or he's lying. He pretends that the second amendment was a clause designed to enhance the federal government's power rather than limit it. he pretends that "well regulated" means the federal government was given power to regulate the firearms of private citizens. He claims because the militia was controlled by congress-that evidences a desire by the founders for congress to regulate the rights of private citizens to own small arms.