The LT Colonel is Coming Home! Look OutNRA!

[haymarket]

You didn't answer my question... You have been spouting off that the Supreme Court agrees with you.. so no coping out with "that's left up to the supreme court"... You stated that the supreme court agrees WITH YOU..

So again.. is it constitutional to ban ALL ARMS except slingshots.

Please answer.. its a simple yes or no.. then we can go on from there.

I already have answered you stating that I seriously doubt that any legislator would introduce such a bill, vote for such a bill, pass such a bill. I seriously doubt that any executive would sign such a bill into law. And I seriously doubt any court would uphold it as constitutional. I already said I did not think such an occurrence of events would be constitutional.

 

[haymarket]

Everybody is wrong trying to parse what is a very clear statement of the constitution, in the second amendment. As what an alternate amendment would look like, maybe the same as the one we have now with the clause "Congress still retains the authority and ability to define and regulate or make law concerning weapons of mass destruction." You are right, if everybody ignores a law the law defacto, though not dejure, does not exist. Which is what is occurring with the second amendment. The law is being ignored.

But lets look at this in very practical terms. We do not go about amending the Constitution for no good reason. It is intended to be a difficult and laborious process. As such, I see no public impetus for such a change as you suggest since I suspect that almost everyone already believes such regulation is right and proper and constitutional.

Pirate - I am willing to concede that one can take your viewpoint and defend it with a strict reading of the Second Amendment. I have no problem with you believing that. I do however feel that the implications and ramifications from extending that belief into everyday reality are simply not what makes for a workable nation with a responsive government.

But I am glad you presented this because I have always felt that if one takes the position that the government cannot regulate firearms - your position is the logical one to take. However, it is also one that makes no sense in a society. So what we are left with is rather simple and I have said it a hundred times if once: the American people have the right to keep and bear arms and the government may pass reasonable regulations regarding that right. Anything else brings us back to your position with nothing else in between. ANd I do not think that position has much support across the land.

 

[jaeger19]

Hate to disagree with you Turtle ole boy, but Haymarket, as much as I hate it, is correct arms includes everything under the sun and then some. Ordinance is a subset of arms. The dictionaries of today and yesterday define arms similarly. And yes arms does include SDI systems, ballistic missiles, battleships, fighter jets, tanks, and WMD warheads. All military and other weapons come under the definition.

I have been following this idea...

so what? I mean, right down the road from me is a guy that sells a functioning tank. On the other side of town, there is a fellow that has several fighter jets.. including a mig with functioning guns.

All legal. Ordinance is also legal. I have a buddy that has a functioning rocket launcher.

Again, all legal.

So whats this whole deal about arms?

 

[jaeger19]

I already have answered you stating that I seriously doubt that any legislator would introduce such a bill, vote for such a bill, pass such a bill. I seriously doubt that any executive would sign such a bill into law. And I seriously doubt any court would uphold it as constitutional. I already said I did not think such an occurrence of events would be constitutional.

Third time.. you again evade the question... I did not ask what you thought could be introduced or any of the rest of that BS..

you stated that the SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH YOU...

I asked you a question on your view (which you state that the Supreme Court agrees with you).

So answer the dang question...

Is it constitutional to ban ALL ARMS except slingshots..

Yes or no.

 

[jaeger19]

And what does that prove in your mind?

That your narrative is wrong.

You fail when you say that individual arms are not protected... they ALL are.

 

[TurtleDude]

Webster's contemporary dictionary of the time supports my position, and I know of NO documents of the founders that disagree with my reading. Further as a I pointed out, private citizens of the time were as well armed as the Navy or Army of the time, frequently being hired by our government to go pirate hunting and other similar work. Warships and cannon as I previously said were commonly in private hands. Those were the WMD's of the time. As you claim the founders did in fact have a restricted view of 2nd amendment, then a document or letter I can peruse would be nice. Your trying to ride a fine line, by differentiating arms, because that same reasoning can and is being used in current arguments against your right to keep arms that argument is part of the crux of the anti gunners arguments. So If you are aware of a founders document that has this restriction mentioned then I would like to know of it so I might learn from it.

how does one bear a cannon?

 

[PirateMk1]

But lets look at this in very practical terms. We do not go about amending the Constitution for no good reason. It is intended to be a difficult and laborious process. As such, I see no public impetus for such a change as you suggest since I suspect that almost everyone already believes such regulation is right and proper and constitutional.

Pirate - I am willing to concede that one can take your viewpoint and defend it with a strict reading of the Second Amendment. I have no problem with you believing that. I do however feel that the implications and ramifications from extending that belief into everyday reality are simply not what makes for a workable nation with a responsive government.

But I am glad you presented this because I have always felt that if one takes the position that the government cannot regulate firearms - your position is the logical one to take. However, it is also one that makes no sense in a society. So what we are left with is rather simple and I have said it a hundred times if once: the American people have the right to keep and bear arms and the government may pass reasonable regulations regarding that right. Anything else brings us back to your position with nothing else in between. ANd I do not think that position has much support across the land.

I have a problem with ignoring the primary law of the land. Regulating arms is doing exactly that and blatantly so. Part of the problem is lawmakers and judges ignoring the law. We are supposed to be a nation governed by law but when we blatantly ignore, twist, and convolute our laws, then are we a still nation of laws? I would say no. The solution is a Constitutional amendment. Blatantly breaking the law is NOT a solution, not to mention a sets bad precedent and absolutely immoral. Constitutional amendments as you said previously are difficult and one must have good reason to change or pass one. If one cannot pass an amendment then obviously people are convinced enough that a change needs to be made. If someone owning a warship, or WMD is a major problem I am pretty sure a constitutional amendment will be passed if presented and written correctly. This country as passed plenty of them.

 

[PirateMk1]

how does one bear a cannon?

Similar to the way one bears a pistol. Point, adjust aim, and click.

 

[TurtleDude]

Similar to the way one bears a pistol. Point, adjust aim, and click.

I'd love to see the Galco IWB for my French 75

 

[PirateMk1]

I have been following this idea...

so what? I mean, right down the road from me is a guy that sells a functioning tank. On the other side of town, there is a fellow that has several fighter jets.. including a mig with functioning guns.

All legal. Ordinance is also legal. I have a buddy that has a functioning rocket launcher.

Again, all legal.

So whats this whole deal about arms?

Some people think they are able to be regulated. I am just disagreeing. Last I checked it was a bitch to get functioning ordinance and weapons systems legally.

 

[PirateMk1]

I'd love to see the Galco IWB for my French 75

I have no clue about the equipment you described, but it sounds cool.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no clue about the equipment you described, but it sounds cool.

Galco IWB-Inside the waistband holster

French 75-main allied forces artillery piece in WWI and early WWII

 

[PirateMk1]

Galco IWB-Inside the waistband holster

French 75-main allied forces artillery piece in WWI and early WWII

Something tells me you would be dragging the barrel and you would need a bigger pair of pants.

 

[TurtleDude]

Something tells me you would be dragging the barrel and you would need a bigger pair of pants.

its a constant problem!

 

[haymarket]

Third time.. you again evade the question... I did not ask what you thought could be introduced or any of the rest of that BS..

you stated that the SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH YOU...

I asked you a question on your view (which you state that the Supreme Court agrees with you).

So answer the dang question...

Is it constitutional to ban ALL ARMS except slingshots..

Yes or no.

I have answered this at least twice already. What is there about I do not think such a thing would pass Constitutional muster do you not understand?

 

[haymarket]

That your narrative is wrong.

You fail when you say that individual arms are not protected... they ALL are.

Only the broader right is singled out for protection in the Second Amendment.

 

[jaeger19]

Some people think they are able to be regulated. I am just disagreeing. Last I checked it was a bitch to get functioning ordinance and weapons systems legally.

I think the problem is not whether they can be regulated.. of course they can be...

Its really HOW they are regulated.

Certainly we have free speech.. but there are limits to that free speech. I can't cheer on a rapist, raping a woman in a bar.

Arms can also be regulated. Even turtledude would recognize that.. I seriously doubt he is going to state that a 8 year old should be allowed to go into a store and buy a .40 glock.

Nor would he state that a violent felon should be allowed to own a firearm. Both of those examples of gun regulation.

Haymarket on the other hand.. seems to believe that guns can be BANNED as a form of regulation. And that is not constitutional.

And yes its a bitch to get functioning ordinance and weapons systems legally. The problem in my opinion is not really so much the regulation but the enforcement by the BATF.. which in my experience are a bunch of A....

Well, never mind...I don't need to end up on some terrorist watch list...:shock:

 

[haymarket]

I have a problem with ignoring the primary law of the land. Regulating arms is doing exactly that and blatantly so. Part of the problem is lawmakers and judges ignoring the law. We are supposed to be a nation governed by law but when we blatantly ignore, twist, and convolute our laws, then are we a still nation of laws? I would say no. The solution is a Constitutional amendment. Blatantly breaking the law is NOT a solution, not to mention a sets bad precedent and absolutely immoral. Constitutional amendments as you said previously are difficult and one must have good reason to change or pass one. If one cannot pass an amendment then obviously people are convinced enough that a change needs to be made. If someone owning a warship, or WMD is a major problem I am pretty sure a constitutional amendment will be passed if presented and written correctly. This country as passed plenty of them.

But there is no need for as as it seems very very few people agree with your interpretation so to them there is no problem to be remedied.

 

[jaeger19]

I have answered this at least twice already. What is there about I do not think such a thing would pass Constitutional muster do you not understand?

Long way to go for a yes and no answer..

Okay.. then what if they banned all shotguns, all handguns, all rifles but NOT air rifles and slingshots...

Would that pass constitutional muster? Yes or no.

 

[jaeger19]

Only the broader right is singled out for protection in the Second Amendment.

Yep and that BROADER right is what protects ALL ARMS...


Hey.. maybe you will get it one day..

 

[haymarket]

Yep and that BROADER right is what protects ALL ARMS...


Hey.. maybe you will get it one day..

What you meant to say is that maybe one day I will come to BELIEVE as you do and worship before the same gods and prostrate myself before the same altar.

 

[haymarket]

Long way to go for a yes and no answer..

Okay.. then what if they banned all shotguns, all handguns, all rifles but NOT air rifles and slingshots...

Would that pass constitutional muster? Yes or no.

The Supreme COurt would have to decide if there is an available environment where the right can be exercised. As before, I suspect such a ban as you describe would not pass Constitutional muster - nor would I support such a ban.

Now stop with the stupid hypotheticals already. If you think I have the time or the patience to go through what looks like an upcoming laundry list of stupid hypotheticals which bear no relationship to the real USA we live in you got another thing coming.

Make your point and make your case for it because this is not a Starr Chamber and I am not your witness on the stand.

Now what about that do you not understand?

 

[jaeger19]

If you think I have the time or the patience to go through what looks like an upcoming laundry list of stupid hypotheticals which bear no relationship to the real USA we live in you got another thing coming.

Actually it has everything to do with the REAL usa..

AND you are the one that made the statements regarding how the Supreme Court AGREES with you.. so, I am merely trying to determine exactly WHAT you believe is constitutional and what is not.

You have a great difficulty answering even the most basic yes or no question.. so this seems like the easiest way to get at your position.

So again.. if they banned all shotguns, all handguns, all rifles, but NOT air rifles and slingshots... would that be constitutional?

Now if you would like to jump ahead.. how about you detail exactly what arms can be banned under the constitution, and what cannot be banned.

 

[jaeger19]

What you meant to say is that maybe one day I will come to BELIEVE as you do and worship before the same gods and prostrate myself before the same altar.

Hmmm.. worshipping usually requires faith.. and I don't have faith when it comes to the constitution.. I have logic and facts.. thank you very much. Its evidenced by the fact that you cannot break my logic.

You on the other hand appear to BELIEVE and prostate yourself before the alter of gun grabbers... that's why you will not answer a direct logical question.

 

[haymarket]

Actually it has everything to do with the REAL usa..

AND you are the one that made the statements regarding how the Supreme Court AGREES with you.. so, I am merely trying to determine exactly WHAT you believe is constitutional and what is not.

You have a great difficulty answering even the most basic yes or no question.. so this seems like the easiest way to get at your position.

So again.. if they banned all shotguns, all handguns, all rifles, but NOT air rifles and slingshots... would that be constitutional?

Now if you would like to jump ahead.. how about you detail exactly what arms can be banned under the constitution, and what cannot be banned.

This will do two things for you:
1- it clarifies my position on the Second Amendment
2- it shows why I can make a statement that the Supreme Court agrees with my position

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment....

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right. You mentioned the banning of handguns and that is what they attempted to do in DC and the Heller decision - which I support - says such a sweeping move is unconstitutional. And that covers your question about banning certain specific weapons.

There is no magic number.
There is no magic formula.
There is no secret recipe for when the environment will not longer support the exercise of the right. As in the Heller case - the Court will make that judgment.

Again - just to be clear for your benefit: The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.



Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.




All of your question have now been answered - in detail and with specificity.