What does it mean to INFRINGE upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms

[TurtleDude]

I recall that there was a provision in the firearms control act that put a 200$ tax on the sale of certian types of guns. Taxes are not same thing as a out right ban.

If i recall correctly the sale of machine guns dropped massively after that law went into effect.

getting rid of the prohibition is what decreased crime not that silly law

do you think bootleggers were deterred by that?

and I am still waiting for you to justify the law as constitutional

 

[Unitedwestand13]

LOL capital murder charges weren't enough I guess. Shooting cops got you a quick trip to the chair.

IT was designed by a power hungry asshole wanting to disarm people.

And no gun laws existed before 1934 and nothing prevented crooks like Capone from buying millitary grade weaponry like the Thompson sub machine gun and out gunning every police force and citizen in the country.

The sale of firearms is a act of commerce, and can be subject to regulation by the government.

 

[TurtleDude]

And no gun laws existed before 1934 and nothing prevented crooks like Capone from buying millitary grade weaponry like the Thompson sub machine gun and out gunning every police force and citizen in the country.

The sale of firearms is a act of commerce, and can be subject to regulation by the government.

that's a dishonest cop out. what part of the commerce clause actually allows that?

and why were cops being out gunned when they could use those same weapons. Are you aware of what the cops killed Bonnie and Clyde with

you are just making stuff up now

 

[Unitedwestand13]

getting rid of the prohibition is what decreased crime not that silly law

do you think bootleggers were deterred by that?

and I am still waiting for you to justify the law as constitutional

The sale of firearms is act of commerce, and the government can cite the commerce clause.

 

[TurtleDude]

The sale of firearms is act of commerce, and the government can cite the commerce clause.

LOL that is pathetic

 

[Unitedwestand13]

that's a dishonest cop out. what part of the commerce clause actually allows that?

and why were cops being out gunned when they could use those same weapons. Are you aware of what the cops killed Bonnie and Clyde with

you are just making stuff up now

Yes the cops were able to get automatic weapons to use againist Bonnie and Clyde, notably the B.a.r, but not everyone could afford these weapons. I am trying to point out that apart from law enforcement personnel, the average citizen normally did not have the resources to accquire the kind of weapons the gangsters had.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes the cops were able to get automatic weapons to use againist Bonnie and Clyde, notably the B.a.r, but not everyone could afford these weapons. I am trying to point out that apart from law enforcement personnel, the average citizen normally did not have the resources to accquire the kind of weapons the gangsters had.

So your attitude was make it even harder for honest people to own them while the people who sold BOOZE ILLEGALLY and killed cops were going to be deterred by that law

 

[Unitedwestand13]

LOL that is pathetic

It worked when court ruled in favor of the government in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in Gibbons v. Ogden

Gibbons v. Ogden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Unitedwestand13]

So your attitude was make it even harder for honest people to own them while the people who sold BOOZE ILLEGALLY and killed cops were going to be deterred by that law

Criminals would be discouraged from buying guns if it involved them paying a tax, something that could end up getting the criminal caught. After all it was tax evasion that put al Capone in jail.

How many farmers in 1934 could afford a Thompson sub machine gun?

 

[Henrin]

Criminals would be discouraged from buying guns if it involved them paying a tax, something that could end up getting the criminal caught. After all it was tax evasion that put al Capone in jail.

How many farmers in 1934 could afford a Thompson sub machine gun?

If they are guilty of a crime than exactly why is the cops not arresting them? Why even worry about restricting their access to guns when the cops should be arresting them?

 

[TurtleDude]

Criminals would be discouraged from buying guns if it involved them paying a tax, something that could end up getting the criminal caught. After all it was tax evasion that put al Capone in jail.

How many farmers in 1934 could afford a Thompson sub machine gun?

far more than after a tax 3X what one cost was imposed

Do you even read the crap you post and then think it through

CRIMINALS disobeyed laws

Bootleggers were smuggling ILLEGAL stuff

geez

 

[TurtleDude]

If they are guilty of a crime than exactly why is the cops not arresting them? Why even worry about restricting their access to guns when the cops should be arresting them?

Gee that's a good question-lets not arrest murderers and bootleggers until they have an illegal machine gun

 

[Unitedwestand13]

far more than after a tax 3X what one cost was imposed

Do you even read the crap you post and then think it through

CRIMINALS disobeyed laws

Bootleggers were smuggling ILLEGAL stuff

geez

Is every government law and regulation of guns unconstitutional? Can the government even make a argument why it should be able to do so, or is that unconstitutional as well?

Oh and does the right bear arms include explosives? If so then why aren't people marching in the streets openly carrying dynamite and pipebombs?

 

[Joe Steel]

because the "right of the persons" to keep and bear arms doesn't seem as proper.

Stylistic variation? Using words for their poetic value? Or, does "seem as proper" have some other meaning?

are you really arguing that "the right of the people" does not apply to individuals?

Yes.

The "right of the People" is declared for citizens, collectively, as sovereign. That construction is consistent with the use of the word throughout American law.

 

[haymarket]

Ah yes, the liberal mind set to take everything away from everybody that they don't agree with. To demonize anything and everything that isn't corrupt. Let's get this straight... NOBODY wants to kill or hurt anyone!!! Period, not the kind of period your master Obama says, LOL. That kind of violence would not be necessary if it were not for "big government libtards" (and that includes both R's and D's) that want to enslave the population. Did it ever occur to you that this is exactly what Hitler did when he became chancellor???? He outlawed guns! Why?

This will educate you about gun policy in Germany during the Hitler and even before:

The Straight Dope: Did Hitler ban gun ownership?

It will also demonstrate you are fundamentally incorrect and outright wrong in your claim.

btw - I have no "master". I also was on record in 2011 stating that Obama should NOT run for a second term.

 

[Federalist]

People remembered the fact that during the prohibition years the gangsters were dominating the cops with arsenals of powerful guns. The national firearms act was created in response to the people wanting to prevent that from happening.

So, nothing. Thanks.

 

[Federalist]

The sale of firearms is a act of commerce...

The constitution only empowers congress to regulate commerce among the states.

 

[Joe Steel]

for the purposes of the second amendment, the term "the people" refers to the individual citizens

Why doesn't it just say that, then, "...the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...?"

 

[Dittohead not!]

Why doesn't it just say that, then, "...the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...?"

I suppose that would be necessary if some of the citizens weren't people.

 

[Joe Steel]

I suppose that would be necessary if some of the citizens weren't people.

So you think the Founders preferred more ambiguity to less ambiguity. Is that right?

 

[Dittohead not!]

So you think the Founders preferred more ambiguity to less ambiguity. Is that right?

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No ambiguity there. Ambiguity comes when modern citizens try to redefine common words, like "people" for example.

 

[danielpalos]

More idiocy. the people have the right, not the militia. You clearly are unable to understand natural rights and natural law. Natural rights precede organized society. A militia is the creation of an organized society. Your argument is that natural rights to not accrue or exist until there is an organized society is contrary to the entire foundation of the constitution.

You lose

You seem to missing the point about States' rights.

 

[danielpalos]

In fact, no individual is a militia, well regulated and necessary or otherwise.

I never claimed there could be a Militia of One.

 

[danielpalos]

The rape of the English Language contained in your posts is amazing

Your ability to appeal to ignorance and claim you are on the right is a habit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your ability to appeal to ignorance and claim you are on the right is a habit.

The only ignorance lately displayed on this thread is coming from the word bending, common sense denying, stilted language using posts you have proffered