Why Attack the 2nd Amendment?

[Thunder]

trust me, you aren't

considering your calling for politicians who vote for gun restrictions to be killed, I see no reason to trust you.

 

[Centinel]

Debateable. There is evidence that the original intent of the commerce clause was chiefly to prevent individual states from enacting tariffs against each other or otherwise restricting inter-state commerce. The commerce clause has been so ludicrously stretched out of proportion in the past century that, if it were rubber band, it would be in a sad state if not broken in half.

I agree 100% with your assessment.

 

[TurtleDude]

considering your calling for politicians who vote for gun restrictions to be killed, I see no reason to trust you.

why don't you honestly describe what I said

politicians who seek to jail or kill citizens for merely owning once lawful firearms

 

[Thrilla]

considering your calling for politicians who vote for gun restrictions to be killed, I see no reason to trust you.

considering you calling for the arbitrary mass denial of rights to a population, I don't trust you.

 

[Thunder]

why don't you honestly describe what I said

politicians who seek to jail or kill citizens for merely owning once lawful firearms

I honestly quoted what you said. Here, I'll post the whole exchange:

here is my position. If you advocate and work for laws that are designed merely to punish, hassle, infringe upon rights, confiscate property or are intended to cause people whose only sin is to own weapons that were once lawful to go to jail I believe it is legitimate for those so targeted to KILL YOU.

Those who pass and enforce such laws are not the only ones who are guilty. Those who advocate such stuff-those who urge others to jail and attack honest people for no reason other than they hate private gun ownership should not think they are entitled to a pass merely because they aren't the ones breaking down doors in the middle of the night or shooting citizens who won't turn over weapons. Indeed, I find those who lobby for such fascist laws to be the people who should FIRST be targeted. They are softer targets and they aren't following orders like some poor cop or agent. These advocates willingly act to destroy the lives of others and are the most legitimate targets for retribution

such a law gets passed, I think those who pushed for it ought to be shot...

so if I give my brother a handgun or my son a shotgun I should be jailed?

anyone who supports such nonsense is a legitimate target

 

[Thunder]

considering you calling for the arbitrary mass denial of rights to a population, I don't trust you.

oh, its not arbitrary at all.

 

[LaMidRighter]

absolutely true-for example the CC was to allow Congress the power to say prevent OHIO from imposing tariffs on Pittsburg Coal traveling down the Ohio river to markets in Evansville Indiana

As well, a price paid for goods supplied to one state must match for another state. For example if raw iron is shipped to Louisiana for .25 lb. it must be shipped likewise to Indiana for .25 lb. The only difference allowable would be transportation costs.

 

[1029066]

I may be liberal as hell, but I am totally for gun rights. Statistically, if every home possesses a gun, crime rates are lower. If you ban guns, it's just like the war on drugs and people will still get them. In fact, only the criminals will have them then in which case we are REALLY screwed.

But I disagree with what you said about the 4th amendment. I totally support the 4th amendment. Police have NO right to search personal property without a warrant. That is fascist and a complete invasion of human rights.

 

[Thunder]

I may be liberal as hell, but I am totally for gun rights. Statistically, if every home possesses a gun, crime rates are lower...

evidence please.

oh, and btw, NYC has some of the toughest gun-laws in the nation, and quite a low murder rate compared to other cities with much looser gun laws.

 

[Thrilla]

oh, its not arbitrary at all.

yes, it is ( i'm commenting on your idea to deny gun rights based on mental problems).. it's also unjust.

you seek to deny the rights of people completely and utterly based on what might maybe someday happen.
that's akin to denying speech rights because you might,one day, maybe incite a riot.

 

[LaMidRighter]

yes, it is ( i'm commenting on your idea to deny gun rights based on mental problems).. it's also unjust.

you seek to deny the rights of people completely and utterly based on what might maybe someday happen.
that's akin to denying speech rights because you might,one day, maybe incite a riot.

And all based on "how he feels", with no actual logical processes defending the infringements.

 

[Centinel]

Congress can't regulate intra-state gun sales...but the individual state can.

So would you also agree that congress can't mandate laws that, say, restrict the length of a shotgun barrel, or restrict the construction and use of a sound suppressor, or that outlaw the multiple shots per trigger pull on firearms. None of these have anything to do with interstate commerce.

 

[blackjack50]

hey, I'm just following the logic of a Literal Constitutionalist.

Do you understand what it means to interprut the Constitution literally?

 

[blackjack50]

evidence please.

oh, and btw, NYC has some of the toughest gun-laws in the nation, and quite a low murder rate compared to other cities with much looser gun laws.

WE have already shown this to be an irrelevant statistic that is attributable to other things. Remember places with gun laws that are equally as strict have higher crime rates as well. That shows that crime is not linked to guns, but to Poverty. Seriously, you need to read the posts man.

 

[blackjack50]

I may be liberal as hell, but I am totally for gun rights. Statistically, if every home possesses a gun, crime rates are lower. If you ban guns, it's just like the war on drugs and people will still get them. In fact, only the criminals will have them then in which case we are REALLY screwed.

But I disagree with what you said about the 4th amendment. I totally support the 4th amendment. Police have NO right to search personal property without a warrant. That is fascist and a complete invasion of human rights.

That is my point. The 2nd amendment is awesome and isn''t the problem. The 4th Amendment is also a great one, and logically speaking it is the only amendment the police and politicians should worry about for going after criminals. Of course violating the 4th Amendment doesn't go down so well if we are still using our 2nd Amendment.

 

[LaMidRighter]

That is my point. The 2nd amendment is awesome and isn''t the problem. The 4th Amendment is also a great one, and logically speaking it is the only amendment the police and politicians should worry about for going after criminals. Of course violating the 4th Amendment doesn't go down so well if we are still using our 2nd Amendment.

That's exactly right. An armed household demands caution and respect, you can scream all day long that you want a warrant for a search of your property but if there is no way to back it up you must rely on a court decision and hope said court doesn't get it wrong.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

on the contrary, the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firearms sales. It only mentions keeping them..and bearing them.

like I said, a purely literal understainding of the 2nd does not include restrictions on firearms sales.

The right to “keep” and “bear” something certainly has to include the right to acquire that thing in the first place. The right to keep something would be meaningless if Big Brother had the authority to prevent you from buying it, or to interfere with your doing so.

 

[Thunder]

The right to “keep” and “bear” something certainly has to include the right to acquire that thing in the first place. The right to keep something would be meaningless if Big Brother had the authority to prevent you from buying it, or to interfere with your doing so.

ah, so the 2nd Amendment requires interpretation? I see.

 

[LaMidRighter]

ah, so the 2nd Amendment requires interpretation? I see.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no interpretation needed to understand that you can't exercise a right if you can't attain the tools to do so. You can't own exercise your right to keep and bear arms if some jackass puts restrictions on purchasing them, considering not everyone can construct their own.

 

[blackjack50]

ah, so the 2nd Amendment requires interpretation? I see.

Only if you don't understand the language the document is written in? I would say that that is a very easy logical leap.

 

[Centinel]

Congress can't regulate intra-state gun sales...

So would you agree that congress can't mandate laws that, for instance, restrict the construction and use of a sound supressor, or the length of a shotgun barrel, or that ban machine guns?

 

[blackjack50]

Today I drove 4 hours through multiple counties in Fl. I walked around at different stores and visited with family too. We will be going to dinner later too. I have carried a handgun the entire time. Funny it hasn't caused any problems. Actually nobody has known it is there. I thought guns were dangerous?

 

[TurtleDude]

Today I drove 4 hours through multiple counties in Fl. I walked around at different stores and visited with family too. We will be going to dinner later too. I have carried a handgun the entire time. Funny it hasn't caused any problems. Actually nobody has known it is there. I thought guns were dangerous?

It would have been if some scumbag had tried to mug you or have his way with your wife or daughter (assumption on my part)

 

[Centinel]

So would you agree that congress can't mandate laws that, for instance, restrict the construction and use of a sound supressor, or the length of a shotgun barrel, or that ban machine guns?

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[blackjack50]

It would have been if some scumbag had tried to mug you or have his way with your wife or daughter (assumption on my part)

But I thought if I had a gun the only person it was dangerous to was me or my loved ones?