You would have to have been born yesterday if you think that was really over a parking spot. Girl was probably dating both of them or something.
Printable View
You would have to have been born yesterday if you think that was really over a parking spot. Girl was probably dating both of them or something.
“Nobody is coming to take away your guns!” Yeah that didn’t age well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://i.imgflip.com/7yknjn.jpg
Can't wait to see what sort of mental gymnastics Seran pulls to try and justify this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Even David Hogg is calling this out.
https://i.imgur.com/NsMpJNd.png
Open carry protests began yesterday. LEOs are not enforcing the governor’s illegal mandate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/gun-o...-health-order/
The governor needs to be held accountable with the highest amount of pwnage allowable by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Pretty sure this is just a test to see how many Serans will obediently nod their heads and agree that it's for our own good.
WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Is this the same David Hogg that earlier this year said no one has a right to a firearm because you are not a militia?
This has to be fake.
https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/sta...605266779?s=20Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
How the hell can someone be so retarded about the Constitution 5-6 months ago, and be normal today?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Makes no sense. His account must have been hacked... probably by white supremacists who are NOT Democrats this time.
Even that leftist asshole activist understands this is completely unconstitutional & will backfire badly. Many on the left have already denounced the governor’s action, so he is probably just jumping on the bandwagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
If we allow a governor to arbitrarily suspend God-given constitutionally protected rights on the whim of an authoritarian declaration of a health emergency, we’re all in deep shit. This isn’t just a gun issue.
Bernalillo County Sheriff rejects public health order on gun possession
https://youtu.be/TGqv9OJEqx0?si=EpjHzq698KyAPnAg
In before Seran demands he be indicted for trying to overthrow the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I'm down with The ATHF.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.eGWOJe...id=ImgDet&rs=1
Also, I can't believe how on-topic one of the first Bing image results was.
Also-also, let us not forget Earl Simmons' view on the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRU6cyb9QuE
That song was a banger!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Burrell
“Shit, the cops hit her, and I know they ain't gon' leave her” - everyone knows the ATF will shoot your bitches.
Every single Republican should be pushing this decision by her in every single election commercial. She's not a super leftist lunatic.. she's an establishment Democrat. This is their game: Declare an emergency and change any law that you don't like in the name of said "emergency".Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
This will be thrown out by any court... and to be fair, she should be thrown out as well.
First covid, then climate change and 2nd amendment.. make the Democrats pay for their stupidity.
He copy pasted someone else's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
All this is a stunt for her to earn cred with anti-gun fucks AND to provide a thermometer for shitbags like Newsome, the Biden admin and others to test the political wind.
And yes she needs to be arrested and criminally prosecuted for civil rights violations on the Federal level. Like IMMEDIATELY.
Here is a decent take on the whole mess.
https://youtu.be/rHAEPU8SZDo?si=mVwM9EsTkNa3L3hC
Oh, did the governor of some state order that all the guns in her state be confiscated? No? Ah well. The only thing more entertaining than watching the Right blow a gasket over her emergency order, is the remarkably few people in the left who don't believe this won't soon be stayed by a NM federal judge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
It's Unconstitutional. EVEN David Hogg knows this.. (how he knows this, I have no idea.. maybe a lucky guess?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
She was sworn to uphold the Constitution and she has opened herself up for removal from office.
But to your "point"... no this isn't confiscation of all guns.. this is just the first step in a long series of steps.. much like what they tried to do with abortion. Law says 12 weeks... what if we pushed this to 15? OK, now 18. Now 21. Now 23. Now it's "YOU CAN'T TELL A WOMAN TO DO WITH HER BODY! SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO ABORT ANYTHING SHE WANTS TO ABORT UP TO AND INCLUDING BIRTH!"
It's sort of the game you sick fucks are doing with trannies. If normal people just let you continue to mutilate and chemically castrate children in the name of inclusion and fairness.. then obviously children are allowed to make life altering decisions. And if they can make decisions like that, then who are we to say they can't make the decision to have sex with an adult!
We know your game.. we are just not playing it.
Constitutional rights cannot be arbitrarily taken away... even during an "emergency".
Never thought I'd run into someone who's so much of a cuck that he makes David Hogg seem based in comparison, but here we are, and I can't say I'm surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyran
What's it like being such a little bitch 24/7?
30 DAYS TO FLATTEN THE GUN VIOLENCE CURVE!!!!!!!!11Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Fuck around & find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
^^ This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
One thing liberals learned during covid is that during emergencies, people will do what they are told to do for the sake of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
One thing normal people learned during covid is that politicians will lie about it being an emergency and that they will close down the country, force people to wear masks that don't do anything and push their agenda in the sake of "emergency"... and the people that did what they were told for the sake of society won't be so understanding next time.
And the Serans of the world will happily go along with it 100% of the time. Because they're extreme retards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
New Mexico legislators call for impeaching Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over temporary gun ban
https://www.koat.com/amp/article/new...calls/45090123
Quote:
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —
After Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's 30-day ban on carrying firearms in public, representatives are now calling to impeach her.
Rep. Stefani Lord and Rep. John Block announced their plan to impeach her, saying this ban is against New Mexicans' constitutional rights.
"I was completely shocked. I mean, this is no way to address a crime issue," Lord said. "She took an oath to uphold that constitution. She needs to understand that those rights are absolute. And that's why we are impeaching her, because she has committed a crime in what she is doing."
Block agrees that this is what needs to be done.
"We need to impeach her and that's something that I don't take lightly. But unfortunately, we need to do it because if we don't start here, it's going to seep through the entire nation," Block said. "We're going to have governors all across the country think that they can just throw the Constitution in a paper shredder and see it go."
However, both Democrats from the Senate and the House say something different.
New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martinez sent us this statement. "It’s absolutely critical that city, county, and state officials continue working together to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. While I have strong concerns about the effectiveness and enforceability of this approach, we need to be focused on moving forward solutions that actually reduce gun violence and make our communities safer."
President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart also sent a statement in regard to the ban and the impeachment.
"We have a passionate governor who is fighting hard to keep the people in our state safe from gun violence. There’s plenty of room to debate the best pathways for doing that, but any talk of impeachment is counterproductive," Stewart said.
According to our political expert Brian Sanderoff, it is possible to impeach the governor, but it would be difficult. Since there is not a legislative session until January, the first step for this impeachment is to have a special session called on by the governor herself, or three-fifths of the House and Senate would need to agree to call on an extraordinary session.
"It would take a majority of the state House members 36 out of 70 in order to impeach a governor. Then, there'd be a trial in the state Senate where it would take two-thirds of the members to convict the governor," Sanderoff said.
However, Sanderoff said the current political realities would make it hard to impeach the governor.
"The Democrats enjoy large majorities in both the state House and the state Senate. In order to get a majority of the House members to impeach and then two-thirds of the state senators to convict would be highly unlikely," Sanderoff said.
Lujan Grisham's press secretary, Caroline Sweeney, sent this statement in response to the impeachment.
"These legislators are more focused on impeachment than working to develop real solutions to save New Mexican lives."
While both Lord and Block said they acknowledged there is a gun violence problem, they said this is not the way to do it. They are in the process of preparing the impeachment documents.
That's nice, they understand there is a gun violence problem but aren't doing something about it. Meanwhile the Governor has reached the logical conclusion that not having a gun makes it harder to commit gun violence. Wonder of wonders.
And this is why you are the GOAT Retard champion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Typically the Left is the ones that don't want to use effective solutions for violence, you know, policing, incarcerating the small minority of perpetrators that commit the vast majority of crimes, anti-gang activities and so on for the quick and proven methods of reducing violence.
Your oath of being a complete retard is absolute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
How many people who are committing gun violence have gone through the process of getting a gun legally, applying and getting approved for a concealed carry permit? Like give me a guess of that percentage... because that is the only group of people that she decided to go after in her effort to curb gun violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I'm guessing that percentage is about the same as your IQ... less than 1.
"BUT SHE'S TRYING!" -Seran the Retard
So her "answer" to gun violence is to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Makes so much sense.. only if you are even MORE retarded than David Hogg.
Illogical conclusion, inanimate objects are incapable of committing acts of any kind. That's why we have deemed them "inanimate"Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You're a fucking idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I heard that Soyran screamed at and then took down his David Hogg poster after he made that tweet, which was located on his ceiling directly above his grease stained air mattress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Why should I venture information on demand? You're not contributing the conversation or putting forth your own arguments, so why should anyone else? Besides, limiting public carry is not 'taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens' anyways, it does however allow officers an opportunity to scrutinize those illegally carrying firearms instead of the usual right wing nut jobs with the Yosemite Sam fixations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Officers are not enforcing this illegal mandate. People are protesting while open carrying a firearm, and there is not a single report of anyone so much as being stopped or questioned by law enforcement. Why? Several reasons, but a major one being that any public body (government organization) that the court finds they violated an individual’s civil rights can be found liable for up to 2 million dollars. Ironically, this same governor signed that bill into law. https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/21%...use/HB0004.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
It literally is though, you're just a retard and a big government simp. Nobody believes you own a gun either, so you can fuck off with that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Also, shall not be infringed. Which you're too retarded to understand.
Oh you misunderstood me... I wasn't actually asking you to contribute or have an intelligent thought. I might as well ask for world peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Re-read what you just posted.Quote:
Besides, limiting public carry is not 'taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens' anyways,
So.. taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is not taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
It's like you want to make sense and almost always fall flat on your face.
It literally is taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.Quote:
it does however allow officers an opportunity to scrutinize those illegally carrying firearms instead of the usual right wing nut jobs with the Yosemite Sam fixations.
Seran literally posted that the term "well regulated" means the government regulates more. He probably believes you can't put fringe on your gun.. like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
https://www.westernleatherholster.co...cabbard-CU.jpg
What do you mean almost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I believe I can count on 1 hand the number of times Seran made a good point in 20 years... but he did have those 5 posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
More second amendment shenanigans. Could only imagine how much of a right wing chad you have to be to think that your pizza taking time to cook entitles you to summary execution. The real tyranny is those trying to prevent the ATF from protecting innocents from Republican causes.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/d...sdotymug21.jpgQuote:
Man Pleads To AK-47 Threat Over Pizza Pie
SEPTEMBER 12--A Tennessee man has pleaded guilty to pointing an AK-47 rifle at Little Caesars employees because his $6 pepperoni pizza was taking too long to cook, records show.
In a plea deal, Charles Doty, 64, agreed last month to cop to his dangerous gunplay at a restaurant in Knoxville. Doty, who was charged with multiple felony counts, is scheduled to be sentenced on September 29 after pleading guilty to four aggravated assault counts.
As a result of Doty’s “blind plea,” the “length and manner of service of the sentence” will be solely determined by a Criminal Court judge, according to a prosecution spokesperson.
Police say Doty became incensed after being told that his pizza would take ten minutes to prepare. Doty demanded a free order of Little Caesars “Crazy Bread” before briefly leaving the restaurant, which is about five miles from his residence.
When Doty (pictured above) returned to Little Caesars, he was carrying an AK-47, which he first pointed at a female worker--who was on her first day on the job--while demanding his order. When another employee sought to leave the restaurant, cops report, Doty asked “where in the hell he thought he was going.”
The staffer then went to a back room and dialed 911.
In a bid to get Doty to leave Little Caesars, a female customer who had received her order handed him her own pepperoni pie. Doty then fled the restaurant (seen below) before Knoxville Police Department officers arrived.
Doty was subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault.
In a TV interview following the November 2021 bust, the worker who had the AK-47 pointed at her said she was shocked at Doty’s overreaction to a minor wait for a pizza. Referring to a Little Caesars slogan, she noted, “We’re not always Hot-N-Ready.”
https://www.thesmokinggun.com/docume...stolero-678302
Add "Chad" to the list of things Seran doesn't understand but pretends he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I’m the kind of right wing chad that calls out soy boy commies like you for being retarded and my pizza gets cooked in wood-fire & coal burning ovens. Come and take them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Specific to this incident, what was the Republican cause?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I won't wait for an answer, because you'll ignore it like you always do.
Do you also bring your AK with you to Starbucks to demand your morning pumpkin spice latte? You know, just in case you need to lay down some justice if the proper amount of whipped foam wasn't used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
No. My AKs stay locked in my gun safe and only come out when:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
(A) When I want to fondle them (which is often)
(B) When I’m taking them to the shooting range (which is sometimes)
(C) When communist alien zombies have invaded & seized control of our government (which hasn’t happened yet but feels like we’re getting a little bit closer everyday)
Also, I don’t got to Starbucks nor do I drink pumpkin spice latte.
Ah, well I supposed you were like the rest of the gun toting middle-income right wingers and were totally hen-pecked and so delivered your missus her daily shot of white-woman heroin. My bad. A and B are pretty acceptable. I'm even with you on C, but I think our perspectives are a wee bit different. When Trump gets his second term in 2032 or 2036 and he immediately sells the bottom 48 states, minus Florida back to Russia and Alaska/Texas to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a gold plated toilet to store his classified material next to, the rest of us will have a thing or two to say about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Little Caesars isn't pizza.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Fucking gross.
It’s true my missus loves her white-woman heroin, but she is perfectly capable of driving her gas powered minivan to our local Starbucks to feed her addiction. That’s how I manage to avoid any violent encounters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I’m good with the generic Sam’s Club Member’s Mark generic breakfast blend. My favorite coffee, and I shit you not, comes from Waffle House.
That's good coffee, the french roast one is good too. Whole bean though, pods don't hold out well. Costco Columbian Supremo is pretty good as well, or Blind Dog Coffee's Dark Roast if they carry that back east.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
This new federal gun violence prevention office should really begin it’s focus on the Bidens. Hunter is facing a felony gun charge & Joe left behind in Afghanistan $7billion worth of weapons of war to terrorists.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-gun...ce95ac1c8ac1fa
Quote:
White House to announce first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention, AP sources say
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is creating the first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention, according to two people familiar with the plans.
The office will coordinate efforts across the federal government and will offer help and guidance to states struggling with increasing gun violence, while taking the lead on implementation of the bipartisan gun legislation signed into law last year. Biden tentatively plans to announce the new effort with an event Friday at the White House, said the people, who had direct knowledge of the plans and who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
The office fulfills a key demand of gun safety activists who banded together as a coalition to endorse Biden for president in 2024, and is an effort by the White House to keep the issue front-and-center as the president pushes for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and urges Congress to act.
“The creation of an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the White House will mark a turning point in how our federal government responds to an epidemic that plagues every state and every community in America,” said Kris Brown, president of the gun safety group Brady, which has advocated for the office since 2020.
“Tackling this epidemic will take a whole-of-government approach, and this new office would ensure the executive branch is focused and coordinated on proven solutions that will save lives.”
Greg Jackson, the executive director of the Community Justice Action Fund, and Everytown for Gun Safety’s Rob Wilcox are expected to hold roles in the newly created office, which White House staff secretary Stef Feldman will oversee, the people said. The White House’s plans were first reported by The Washington Post.
“There are few people who care more about the work of gun violence prevention than President Biden,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has drafted legislation with Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., that would create such an office. “Establishing a White House office dedicated to this fight will save thousands of lives and strengthen the federal government’s implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.”
Firearms are the No. 1 killer of children in the U.S., and so far this year 220 children younger than 11 have died by guns and 1,049 between the ages of 12 and 17 have died. As of 2020, the firearm mortality rate in the U.S. for those under age 19 is 5.6 per 100,000. The next comparable is Canada, with 0.08 deaths per 100,000.
But Republican support for gun restrictions is slipping a year after Congress passed the most comprehensive firearms control legislation in decades with bipartisan support, according to a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
Most Democrats, 92%, want gun laws made stronger, in line with their views in a UChicago Harris/AP-NORC poll conducted in July 2022. But Republican desire for more expansive legislation has dropped to 32% from 49% last summer and independents’ support has also declined slightly to 61% from 72%.
Yet despite the political divide, both sides believe it’s important to reduce mass shootings that plague the nation, the poll found. As of Monday, there have been at least 35 mass killings in the U.S. so far in 2023, leaving at least 171 people dead, not including shooters who died, according to a database maintained by the AP and USA Today in partnership with Northeastern University.
That puts the country on a faster pace for mass killings than in any other year since 2006, according to the database, which defines a mass killing as one in which four or more people are killed, not including the perpetrator, within a 24-hour period.
Oh he mad.
I’ll give credit to Gavin Newsom that at least he is transparent about his position and seeks to implement his draconian firearm restrictions through the proper legal means of a constitutional amendment. It’s still questionable since the Bill of Rights recognizes inalienable rights given by God that predate government, but I respect that approach a lot more than Michelle Lujan Grisham attempting to suspend rights because of an executive declared health emergency.
https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/stat...83651159298416
Quote:
BREAKING: California's high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.
Wake up, America.
Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.
Gavin Newsom is a slimy little greaseball and has been groomed his entire life to suckle on the tit of Big Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Oh I totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I’m just saying at least he owns it and doesn’t hide behind “I support the 2nd amendment, but…”. Small distinction.
So he's not Soykerning it up... being a mealy-mouth little bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I can agree with that... He's still a scumbag slimeball though.
Isn't that sort of like saying water is wet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
https://media.tenor.com/0LilrjE_quEAAAAC/not-wrong.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by kutter
I totally take back that small compliment I paid to Newsom about pursuing his tyranny through the legal means of change vs openly attacking the U.S. Constitution he swore to uphold and protect. If California wasn’t oppressive enough for you already:
Gov. Newsom Signs 11% Excise Tax on Guns, Describes It as a 'Sin Tax'
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...t-sin-tax/amp/
Edit: Before Seran or some other retard asks me how this is defying our Constitution…. It’s very simple. You cannot tax a right. You want to pay a tax to express your free speech? How about paying for due process? Who is in favor to pay a tax to avoid cruel and unusual punishment by government? You get the idea.
Seems in line with the exorbitant taxes heaped on tobacco products over the years supposedly in an attempt to make them less appealing. Or... taxes on alcohol, or even taxes applied to sex work in NV, or legal weed in Colorado. How is this one thing uniquely immune to such taxation you've not previously objected to? Do these other taxes not defy our constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Do we have a specific constitutional right to keep and bear alcohol, weed, or prostitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
Edit: A good argument one could make is that the federal government currently taxes firearms & ammunition before this California state bill was passed, and has done so for roughly 100+ years. I would counter to say that it has yet to be challenged in the courts, but quite certain it would not pass muster for the standard of the Bruen decision. Perhaps a good thing that will come out of this law and subsequent legal challenge is that this will set legal precedent on that.
That's dumb. Sales taxes, excise taxes, import fees, registration fees, etc., almost all of which have been in place long before you were born. Your argument is as unfounded as it is stupid. There is no caveat to the Constitution that lists an exception to taxation if someone views a product as a 'right'. Your examples don't even come close to being representative of a simple 11% tax on firearms to fund school protection. Stop being an ultra conservative sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Another consideration is how does this practicality reduce gun violence & who is being targeted by this bill?
Convicted criminals don’t purchase firearms legally and won’t be paying this tax. Rich people can afford the tax and will be minimally impacted. The poor and working class law abiding citizens who seek to exercise their 2nd Amendment right is who really will suffer. This tax contributes to make the acquisition of firearms prohibitively expensive for the economically challenged. Think of it just like a poll tax to vote. The cherry on top is that this tax will be used to further fund gun control measures that work against those people from exercising their rights.
You know how they say in criminal court that a defendant has a right to council and government will grant them an attorney if they can’t afford one? Why is that? Perhaps government should charge a tax to anyone that makes use of a public defender, and it can be justified by that money to be used for some benevolent service like funding our schools. Would you be ok with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Taxes to fund government services and fees associated with court filings are also something not new in the last 100 years, so once again your hyperbolic statement is way off base. Your side has done way too much attacking or flagrant disregard of the Constitution for political expedience, now it's the Right to Counsel? Unbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Both sides and all states should follow & adhere to the US Constitution (all of it including those they may not like or find politically convenient), or we lack any common ground that binds us together as Americans. Newsom fully understands that this is a blatant violation. In addition to this one there were other gun control measures like naming pretty much every public place a sensitive area where the carry of a firearm is prohibited. This is petty retaliation for Benitez striking down magazines capacity limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
If Gavin Newsom can do this and take advantage of the slow wheels of justice in our judicial system without any repercussions, other governors and officials can do the same for other Constitutional rights. Maybe some Republican governor may pass a law requiring a poll tax and literacy test requirement for voter registration (use some creative rebranding of it with a justification or intent to do good). My point is open defiance of SCOTUS and the Constitution is going to bring our country to a dark place. It’s time we either stand together on common ground laws, or face the consequences of a dying Republic.
You're arguing things specifically prescribed against in the Constitution will be adopted by Republican governors in retaliation for taxation and regulation which is specifically allowed by the Constitution. Wow..Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Trump's arguing people should be executed without trial, that MSNBC should have it's ability to present in violation of the First Amendment, that the only fair trial he can receive is one that never happens. He was violating the emoluments clause his first year in office. The list goes on and on. Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?
Not what I am saying at all. I’m trying to put things in perspective for you, which is obviously not possible. I will argue with you no further on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Right on queue....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Your perspective is that irrelevancy is made relevant because you disagree with the Untied States Constitution. If you're unable to support you the premise of your own arguments, why make them at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
He didn't say he couldn't support his own argument.. he's saying that having a debate on the argument with someone who has the IQ of a dead stalk of broccoli isn't worth the time it would take to explain it in the most basic and simplest terms imaginable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
On the contrary, demonstrating a heavy handed misunderstanding of the United States Constitution to decry taxation as an impingement of rights requires pretty epic amounts of mental gymnastics. Particularly when you consider an example was used, illustrative or no, that some sort of poll tax which is specifically not allowed by a constitutional amendment is the same as an excise tax, which is allowed, is reaching far far up ones own ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
PB was absolutely right and more eloquently stated that I reached my patience limit debating the GOAT retard champ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I do find the irony of this post quite amusing though.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the sale or taxation of arms, which is regulated separately. Not by the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Is it regulated in the 2nd Amendment, where it states "Well-regulated"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
Sure it does. If the state taxes firearms that is clearly an infringement. It makes firearms inaccessible to economically challenged law abiding citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
This was already legally decided in the Civil Rights era of the 60s. It was the legal argument for the 24th amendment abolishing a poll tax to vote. What other defined Constitutional right are we taxed for exercising? Why is it ok in your mind to tax people on their 2nd Amendment rights but it’s not ok to do so for any other?
Property taxes aren't a Constitutional violation of the right to property, likewise taxes on firearm purchase aren't a violation of either the 2nd amendment. Given we're talking about actions by state applicable to it's citizens, federal supremecy clause doesn't apply either. Rights not reserves shall be relegated to the states.
Now you are on to something and I applaud you for making an actual intelligent point bringing up property & property tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Does the federal government directly tax citizens on property?
In regards to property, which by that I mean land, the Constitution specifically contains 3 provisions for taxation. The federal government is limited on direct tax, equal protection rule, & the privileges and immunities provision. It’s made clear that states can indeed tax property, but the federal government effectively cannot.
Now, what are the last 4 words in the 2nd amendment? Google the definition of the very last word.
Let’s talk about another part of the Bruen Decision response bill passed by California.
One thing it does is require a face to face interview with law enforcement and letters from two character witnesses + your spouse if married. In addition, you need to pay some pretty steep fees/taxes for the license to carry. Lastly, for doing all that, the state named 26 places prohibiting the carry of a firearm deemed “sensitive”. A public side walk is effectively the only place you are allowed to exercise your right in public.
Imagine doing that to any of your other rights. Whether you choose to exercise them or not, these are YOUR rights as much as they are all law abiding citizens.
But the federal government isn't the one doing this taxation, the state of California is which is why your tangent is pointless. You earlier implied an argument that by making guns more expensive, they're violating the 2nd amendment, which was disproven. If you need further rational, an 11% tax on a good isn't an undue burden regardless, nor is it an infringement no more than direct taxation of income is an infringement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
The state of Texas makes it illegal to carry a firearm in a place of worship if the church posts the prohibition. Why aren't you crying about that too? For that matter why are you carrying on about the State of California passing an excise tax like it's some new thing, when the federal government already has such a tax on firearms and ammunition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Any place of business or worship can post proper signage prohibiting the carry of firearms on their property. Why am I not upset? Because it’s the individual choice of the business owner or church. It’s their property and their rules to allow firearms or not. I fail to see what point you are trying to make as that’s clearly not government infringement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I proactively addressed the existing federal government taxing it too. It hasn’t been challenged in the courts yet, but I find that to be unconstitutional as well. The new Bruen Decision makes the burden on government to any restriction to the 2nd Amendment only legal if it is in the history, text, and tradition at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. You know what didn’t exist back in 1791?: A federal tax on firearms.
Let’s do some quick real world situation math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Let’s say a brand X modern striker fire pistol costs $400. Now apply a 11% federal tax + 11% California tax = 22% or $88 in this example. That $400 pistol now costs the consumer $488. Now you’re a poor broke mofo, right? Are you going to lie and say $88 extra a poor person would need to pay isn’t excessive and could make a necessary tool to defend their life outside of their budget? What is to stop California from increasing that tax to 1000% in the future? Do you only want rich people, their private security, and police & military to be able to afford guns? Do you realize the United States Revolution was kicked off after a 10% import tax on British tea?
Wow that's a lot of wishful thinking on your part, not gonna talk you out of it but I hope your dreams aren't as crushed as it likely will be. There is functionally no distinction between the government restricting firearms of someone puts us to a sign, or the government simply restricts carry in specific areas. In both situations the government is the causal source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Wrong. The Constitution restricts the government from doing it. The Constitution does not restrict private citizens from doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I complimented you when you had something intelligent to say/ask, but now I’ve got to tell you this post is incredibly stupid. You don’t understand the distinction between a place of worship having the option to legally restrict firearms on their own property vs the government mandating where a person can legally carry? Try real hard to rub the few remaining brain cells you have together and think on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Edit: Seran let me help you… Situation 1) California passes a law saying no two consenting adults may have sexual contact. Situation 2) California passes a law saying that rape is a punishable crime (rape defined as when a person has sexual relations with another person without their consent). You agree #1 is wrongfully oppressive but #2 is absolutely a good normal law? Now apply that same logic to what we’re talking about with carrying a firearm inside a place of worship or someone’s business.
I just want to point out guns being allowed in Church or not.. When that guy started trying to shoot at people in church a few years ago.. There was at least 8 guys that pulled out guns ready to stop the situation. Somewhere in south Texas.
I do not think I'd carry in church and break the rules, but I'm sure they were happy that some members of the congregation did so that day.
Jesus Christ just when I didn't think you could get anymore retarded, even though I should know better by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
To be fair.. that's on you. Seran is an alpha level retard and there is no way to determine the absolute depth his retardation can reach if he really doesn't put his mind to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
They changed the law a few years ago for that reason. If a church wants to prohibit carry in Texas they post 30.06 and 30.07 signage just like any other establishment. It gets a little more tricky if the church also has a school, in which case you have to follow the mixed-use laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realk
There are a few places I frequent that don’t want firearms in their establishment & have the proper legal signage (notably a popular breakfast spot). I know for a fact many people simply ignore those signs, but me…I do my very best to be law abiding.
Your hyperbole continues to be stupid and pointless. Both situations with the firearm carry are as a result of government restrictions, but you blatantly ignore it for the sake of a faulty argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I thought that the point we we're going for was that a sign on the wall doesn't effect what a bad person will do. So the fact that were people there to stop him also armed is was a good thing.
Add "private entities vs. government entities" to the list of 994247238043242304782304 things Seran can't wrap his retard brain around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You are absolutely wrong, as usual. One situation is the government restricting. The other situation is a place of worship restricting (if they so choose).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You're glossing over that the only reason the place of worship, eatery, etc, has the right the ban weapons is by state government statute. Yes, the business or location is the decider, but to ignore that it's government entity that grants the privilege is just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Absolutely. Violent criminals don’t follow gun laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realk
On that subject, the Sheriff of Fresno made a public statement condemning these recent gun laws. A lot of pro-2A folks are criticizing him for not going all the way to say they won’t enforce it since it’s unconstitutional. I’m more understanding. He is in a tough spot and I applaud him for speaking out against the laws. Until a court actually strikes them down as unconstitutional, it is the State law now in California. The Sheriff is trying his best to do his job and what’s right, and there are negative consequences to telling the public they won’t enforce the new laws.
What’s missing to me is that we need some sort of negative consequence for politicians who knowingly & openly pass into law that defy the Constitution & Supreme Court decisions. The State will spend a lot of money defending their actions, but nothing bad actually happens to the politicians. In fact, the politicians have incentives to be openly defiant like this for the national clout. That’s a problem.
Do you have that Texas state statute handy that you could post it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Thanks.
In before "gOoGlE iT"Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Here's the resource, do your own research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-law...gious-property
No, I was looking for the specific Texas state statute that spells out that "the only reason the place of worship, eatery, etc, has the right the ban weapons is by state government statute."Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
According to Seran logic, did you know that the only reason people are able to not shit their pants is because there's no government law saying that everyone has to shit their pants?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
https://media.tenor.com/BPBlTLyHx2QA...ow-reading.gif
Seran shits his pants anyway, but for completely different reasons, the primary one being that he's a drooling retard and can't help it.
Of course he can’t because it doesn’t exist. From the site he did post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The real world summary, prior to 2019 places of worship were excluded from places you could legally carry. I believe this was before Texas adopted constitutional carry without a LTC by the way. Anyways, some evil bastard went into a church to kill a bunch of people. A bunch of parishioners pulled out their guns and ended the threat. Technically those good people that were carrying a firearm inside the church were breaking the law, but they saved a bunch of people by doing so. Texas got smart and changed the law to make places of worship the same as any other normal establishment. If a church wants to prohibit people from carrying a firearm on their property they must post proper specific signage, otherwise it’s legal to do so.Quote:
SB 535 Bill Analysis
SB 535 is a Texas law that became effective 9/1/2019. It was published with a bill analysis that includes an author/sponsor statement of intent. This statement says that the intent of SB 535 (2019) was to codify Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0176 and to "make it clear that places of worship are to be treated the same as other private property when determining whether a license holder may carry on premises."
And for some unexplainable retard reason, Seran is arguing that since a business or church decide to post signage making it illegal to carry on their property that’s the same thing as the government mandating that the carry of a firearm in all of those places is prohibited.
Well, that regulation is spelled out in the 2nd Amendment when it says "Well-regulated".........Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I could be incorrect but I've always thought it was state mandated that you couldn't carry into a place that had the 51% 49% sign. IE; going into a bar with a gun. Once again though signs dont stop people from doing dumb shit.
You are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realk
Personally I think that’s dumb as well for the reason you mentioned. It’s already illegal to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while in possession of a firearm, which is a good law. It’s also annoying that the 51% sign doesn’t have to be posted on the door, so if you walk into a restaurant & bar combo where it’s not obvious that it’s 51%+ alcohol sales you don’t know for sure until you have already stepped inside.
TABC in general is a terrible law enforcement agency in my opinion. They wrote me a ticket back in college for being underage and sitting in the backseat next to some beer. I never did pay that ticket either… Wonder now if I have a warrant in Lubbock or more than likely it’s past the statute of limitations.
Of course you dumb fucks didn't bother to do something as simple as changing to tab on the site I linked. Are you honestly so ignorant to think that a Texas Attorney General article referencing the relevant penal codes was somehow mistaken that private property carry exemptions are allowable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...E.30.htm#30.05Quote:
Texas Code Penal 30.05 - Criminal Tresspass
(a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.
(3) "Shelter center" has the meaning assigned by Section 51.002, Human Resources Code.
(4) "Forest land" means land on which the trees are potentially valuable for timber products.
(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(6) "Superfund site" means a facility that:
(A) is on the National Priorities List established under Section 105 of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. Section 9605); or
(B) is listed on the state registry established under Section 361.181, Health and Safety Code.
(7) "Critical infrastructure facility" means one of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders:
(A) a chemical manufacturing facility;
(B) a refinery;
(C) an electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station, electrical control center, or electrical transmission or distribution facility;
(D) a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;
(E) a natural gas transmission compressor station;
(F) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility;
(G) a telecommunications central switching office;
(H) a port, railroad switching yard, trucking terminal, or other freight transportation facility;
(I) a gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas; or
(J) a transmission facility used by a federally licensed radio or television station.
(8) "Protected freshwater area" has the meaning assigned by Section 90.001, Parks and Wildlife Code.
(9) "Recognized state" means another state with which the attorney general of this state, with the approval of the governor of this state, negotiated an agreement after determining that the other state:
(A) has firearm proficiency requirements for peace officers; and
(B) fully recognizes the right of peace officers commissioned in this state to carry weapons in the other state.
(10) "Recreational vehicle park" has the meaning assigned by Section 13.087, Water Code.
(11) "Residential land" means real property improved by a dwelling and zoned for or otherwise authorized for single-family or multifamily use.
(12) "Institution of higher education" has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code.
(13) "General residential operation" has the meaning assigned by Section 42.002, Human Resources Code.
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) Subject to Subsection (d-3), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor, except as provided by Subdivisions (2) and (3);
(2) a Class C misdemeanor, except as provided by Subdivision (3), if the offense is committed:
(A) on agricultural land and within 100 feet of the boundary of the land; or
(B) on residential land and within 100 feet of a protected freshwater area; and
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:
(A) the offense is committed:
(i) in a habitation or a shelter center;
(ii) on a Superfund site; or
(iii) on or in a critical infrastructure facility;
(B) the offense is committed on or in property of an institution of higher education and it is shown on the trial of the offense that the person has previously been convicted of:
(i) an offense under this section relating to entering or remaining on or in property of an institution of higher education; or
(ii) an offense under Section 51.204(b)(1), Education Code, relating to trespassing on the grounds of an institution of higher education;
Wait, wut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Let’s just agree on one thing. You shouldn’t come to Texas.
Why are you so angry that private citizens defended themselves against a mass murderer in a church?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I mean, we know why, I would just like to hear your reasoning.
Serious question, do you think it should be illegal for drunk people or people on drugs to carry firearms?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I called that a good law in the post you quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Yes it should be illegal to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while in bodily possession of a firearm.
Here's the question again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Ok great, we agree. Now, doesn’t that violate my second amendment rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
No. You violated your own 2nd amendment rights by impairing yourself. It's like if you are found guilty of a violent felony.. you violated your own 2nd amendment right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Are you asking my personal take or legally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Legally we must apply the Bruen standard which is that any restriction to an individual’s second amendment right must be in the history, text, and tradition at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights (1791). Without doing research I would imagine that there were in fact laws prohibiting drunk people from carrying a firearm.
My take, if you are going to exercise your second amendment right to carry that is a serious responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Being under the influence of something that lowers your inhibitions & rational thinking while in possession of a firearm is simply unsafe. Making the argument that such a law is a violation of one’s 2nd Amendment rights is the equivalent of saying laws against brandishing of a firearm or celebratory gun shots (like New Years or 4th of July) within city limits is a violation. In the words of Uncle Ben from Spider-Man “with great power comes great responsibility”.
That’s great, I agree with you, 100%, now why can’t we apply your same very logic with documenting who buys guns from private citizens(who have a side job of selling firearms)? You know, It’s a serious responsibility to make sure the person you are selling to, is legally allowed to own and posses a firearm, wouldn’t you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Thanks for your well thought out answer!
I'm in. Drunk people can't buy or sell guns until they sober up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
https://media4.giphy.com/media/sSzCDRnOMaq3K/giphy.gif
What problem should I solve next?
Which other rights should we document when citizens attempt exercise them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
And I’m sure if they made it a law that drunk people can’t buy guns from private citizens, you’d be going off on how it’s a violation of the second amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
All restrictions of lawful citizens buying owning, transporting and using firearms are violations of the Second Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I appreciate the question and rational conversation on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I am absolutely for background checks and taking reasonable precautions that the person buying a firearm is legally allowed to possess one. It’s a common misconception that supporters of the 2nd Amendment oppose background checks all together, which simply isn’t true.
You said documenting who buys a firearm, and that is where it gets a little tricky… It’s illegal and goes against the 2nd Amendment for our government to have a national firearms registry (with the exception of NFA registered weapons like machine guns which is another matter that I won’t get into here). Why is that? I’m sure you have heard from people like me that registration leads to confiscation but perhaps nobody has explained that well. If the government has a list of every person that posses firearms & what kind, that can (and throughout history repeatedly has been) used for nefarious purposes of disarming its citizens.
When people say they want “universal background checks” and “closing the gun show loophole” let’s talk about what that really means. FFL dealers perform background checks. A private citizen doesn’t have the tools or resources to do so, and so currently one private individual selling to another isn’t required to perform a background check on the buyer. It’s important to note that it is a felony to knowingly sell a firearm to someone that legally cannot posses one.
I do object to a transaction between two private individuals to require a background check for a number of reasons. The biggest one of all, the only way to be able to enforce that as law is for the government to know who has the guns (a firearm registry). Think about it…how would the feds know that I sold a gun to my neighbor without a background check? The only way is to check a list to say that gun belonged to me and no background check was conducted on the buyer. This defeats the Second Amendment. That’s not the only reason I object to it, but I don’t want to make this super long & the reason I gave is the most important.
And I'm sure if your pseudo friends in Russia said that only poopyheads think that drunk people shouldn't be able to to buy guns from private citizens until they sober up, you'd be going off about how right they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
-Judge Benitez 2023Quote:
“The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still,”
I just want to say that it always warms my heart seeing that epic high five between Maverick & Goose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I don’t think it’s a common misconception at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Sorry when I said documenting, I meant background checks, and keeping a record of it.Quote:
You said documenting who buys a firearm, and that is where it gets a little tricky… It’s illegal and goes against the 2nd Amendment for our government to have a national firearms registry (with the exception of NFA registered weapons like machine guns which is another matter that I won’t get into here). Why is that? I’m sure you have heard from people like me that registration leads to confiscation but perhaps nobody has explained that well. If the government has a list of every person that posses firearms & what kind, that can (and throughout history repeatedly has been) used for nefarious purposes of disarming its citizens.
You can get your own background check done, most local background checks can be done online, through the local police stations. I got mine done, took 10 minutes, and just went to the police station to pick it up. A full state would have cost me $10 and takes around a day to complete.Quote:
When people say they want “universal background checks” and “closing the gun show loophole” let’s talk about what that really means. FFL dealers perform background checks. A private citizen doesn’t have the tools or resources to do so, and so currently one private individual selling to another isn’t required to perform a background check on the buyer. It’s important to note that it is a felony to knowingly sell a firearm to someone that legally cannot posses one.
This is where I believe you are a little wrong. Let’s imagine I buy a gun from you, you take my background check, and keep it. I go out and kill 3 people, they can trace the gun’s serial number back to you, and you can provide evidence that you did a background check on me. There would be no national registry etc.Quote:
I do object to a transaction between two private individuals to require a background check for a number of reasons. The biggest one of all, the only way to be able to enforce that as law is for the government to know who has the guns (a firearm registry). Think about it…how would the feds know that I sold a gun to my neighbor without a background check? The only way is to check a list to say that gun belonged to me and no background check was conducted on the buyer. This defeats the Second Amendment. That’s not the only reason I object to it, but I don’t want to make this super long & the reason I gave is the most important.
When we’re talking about firearms background check let’s keep it standardized & in the context to completing an ATF form 4473 & a NICS check. The only ones that can effectively do that are registered FFLs (firearms dealers). FFLs get audited by the ATF for record keeping and such. They are required to hold onto 4473s for a period of 10 years if I am not mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I understand the scenario you are trying to paint but let’s remove murder from the equation and just say that the ATF is investigating firearms crime. IE, they are going after people who sold guns but didn’t go through a background check with universal background check laws. Now I have a bunch of guns and sell one to somebody in a private sale outside of the FFL process. How would the ATF be able to enforce that universal background check law and go after me for that crime of selling a firearm outside of that process without a list of knowing what guns I possess?
Again, what other Rights of lawful citizens require authorization and tracking from the government to exercise?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
That’s a specific scenario. I’m referring to the guns that are used to commit crimes, or are in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. A serial number trace can see who bought and sold the gun.
It’s more like, you sold a gun to me, I committed a crime with it. They trace the gun back to you, if you didn’t do/get a background check before you sold it, you’d be charged. If you did do a check, you’re fine.
I think the law is NOT to crack down on people who sell guns, it’s to ensure that the people who have the rights to have firearms can get them, and the ones that don’t have the right to get firearms don’t get firearms.
I think private citizens should by law, be required to get a background check from the buyer, and keep it on file.
It literally takes 10 minutes and a 24 hour wait to get a state/national background check. It’s not difficult at all, and an extremely small thing people can request/do to make sure people who shouldn’t have guns, don’t get them.
With great power, comes great responsibility:D
As I mentioned, there isn’t a legal firearm registry database.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Currently the way it works today is LEOs would look for the serial number and find the FFL that was in possession of the firearm. Next ATF would contact the FFL and ask for the 4473 of the sale of that firearm. Then they would need to talk to the person that bought it. The person that bought it could have lost, had stolen, or sold it to another person and ATF or LEOs would need to investigate to find out.
Do you agree that a national firearm registry is a violation of the Constitution and a bad idea?
Lost or stolen, if your gun was lost or stolen, wouldn’t you report that to the police? If private sellers kept a record of who they sold to, it shouldn’t be an issue to track who had the firearm last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Do I think a national registry is a bad idea and a violation? Based on history, I can understand why it is a bad idea and a violation because of said history. At the same time, the world has changed, technology is different, and I think we need to change and adapt to the changing times. That being said, I don’t support a national registry, but I support private sellers keeping on record who they have sold guns to.
To access this information from the seller, they would need a warrant, for tracking a gun that was used in a crime.
A responsible person would report a firearm lost or stolen, yes. For reasons, that doesn’t always happen though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I think it’s reasonable for private sellers to keep a log. I don’t really sell guns, but I thought about how I would handle posting an ad on Texas Gun Trader and selling to a private person that I don’t know. I’d ask to see if they have a Texas LTC (carry license). If they have a valid one, then they have already gone through extensive background checks. If they didn’t, I’d probably choose to facilitate the sale through my FFL and pay the fee. That’s my personal decision though, but legislating that I find unnecessary. The real truth is the reason politicians are pushing universal background checks is not to prevent gun crime. It’s about control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Would you be for or against a law that requires private sellers to need a national/state background check, and/or each state provides a hotline where the seller can verify that the buyer’s carry permit is legal and valid, and they keep a personal record of each buyer?
I wouldn’t be totally opposed to that if:Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
It was free for the buyer and seller
The process was fast and not cumbersome
It can be done & the law enforced without creating a national firearm registry
I can’t speak to the legality on all things, but if the above conditions were met I wouldn’t write angry letters to my representative about it.
Awesome, glad we could come to an agreement!Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Awesome indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
https://media.tenor.com/we54wAcsxAAA...y-lawrence.gif
I am almost positive they are required to hold on to them in perpetuity and if the store closes, they have to forward them to the ATF, at least that is what an acquaintance of mine that is an FFL and owns a store told me. But he gets flooded every few years where he stores his records and invariably loses all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
You may very well be right that it’s indefinitely. My sympathy for his boating accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by kutter
Exciting week for the Biden Administration! The Supreme Court has lifted a stay against federal rules on ghost guns and for California, the Court of Appeals has upheld California laws on high capacity magazines.
Holy shit, we are saved! President Biden has solved the gun problem in America!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Yay for tyranny!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I’d expect nothing less from the 9th Circus…I mean Circuit. SCOTUS lifting the stay on so called ghost guns was a little surprising, but they do tend to side with government on stays until a final decision is reached. It will take years to resolve both, but I have an inclination that SCOTUS will take on the magazine case after 9th Circuit finds some way to ignore Bruen.
“During my twelve-and-a-half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime.” -Joe Biden 1985 on Senate floor
Hopefully he'll be held accountable for his reversal on positions. Sure the quote is approaching forty years old and things have changed, but to be on the record saying you didn't think gun control legislations was needed and that regulations would have no meaningful impact on crime since criminals will always be able to get guns is in direct conflict with his current position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
What "things have changed" so dramatically that his complete 180 on that position should have changed 40 years later?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
And that quote is going on 40 years.. because that old fuck has been suckling on the teet of government for his entire adult life.
TERM
LIMITS
The elevating number of school shootingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The elevating number of mass shootings
The fact the number of murders committed per year with a firearm has doubled since then? Take your pick.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conte...hsUpdate_2.png
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-re...eathsupdate_2/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-re...eathsupdate_2/
lol @ you being stupid as fuckQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
In all fairness, back then the two parties found more compromise & Democrats didn’t have quite the staunch anti-2nd Amendment stance they do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
The key word in gun control is control. It’s not about saving lives.
So, we have a mental illness problem in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I agree.
What will a bump stock ban or a high capacity magazine ban do specifically to address our mental health issues?
I'd like to see those graphs as a percent of gun owning age population.
SCOTUS agreed to hear a case on the federal bump stock ban. The real issue behind this case is the ATF reinterpretations of existing legislation & a bureaucracy creating their own rules (which seem to change frequently) without any legislation from Congress. The decision of this case should have wide reaching implications that go beyond bump stocks (pistol brace rule, forced reset triggers, homemade firearms aka “ghost guns”, and more come to mind).
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...ks-2023-11-03/
It'll be an interesting case result to read once it is heard. Given prior rulings upholding some of the ATFs decisions, I would venture to say the Supreme Court is aware that they're working within their scope under federal law and impose such regulations/rules that fall within their derived authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I don’t think they would have agreed to take on the case unless the majority plans to overturn it, but we’ll see in time. Recent historical SCOTUS rulings on gun issues speak for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Edit: Also the ATF is working beyond their scope. They are a bureaucracy and cannot create new laws. The age of chevron deference is over with the prior ruling against the EPA. I expect the ATF to get their tushy spanked hard.
I may be living in some alternate world, but in 2021 the Supreme Court declined to take up an appeal on the tenth circuit ruling upholding the ATFs bump stock rule. Now here we are in 2023 and a similar case is being heard, but the Supreme Court slapped the hand of an appeals court trying to put a stay on ATF enforcement against ghost guns. I'd say the issue is ripe to be heard and they'll uphold the bump stock decision they previously made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
There are no 'new laws' being made. Firearm accessories which are illegal under existing federal law were pointed out as illegal, regardless of the minor construction changes, or attempts to circumvent via name changes. How precisely do you expect federal law to be upheld if not for the Executive Branch through it's jurisdictional agencies doing so?
Pointing out the Chevron/Sackett decision.. okay. Sackett merely clarifies that landowners have the right to seek judicial review of agency decisions under the Clean Water Act. It doesn't indicate a party would prevail under such an action.
You are entitled to your opinion even if it’s completely wrong. We’ll both get to see what happens when SCOTUS decides this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Truer words...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Finally, a hint of self awareness. Even if it was accidental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
We shall see. I would be amused if Justice Thomas goes into another tirade that any constitution provision or amendment is limited to circumstances at the time of writing, particularly on the Rahimi matter who is arguing his right to threaten his former lovers with being shot to death shall not be infringed by taking away his guns. Mr Thomas probably thinks the government had no rights to protect women as Mr Rahimi alleges, because they were little more than possessions or chattal when the Constitution was drafted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Don't forget Justice Thomas single handedly saved untold numbers of unborn children, Seracist!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Trump was the one who gave the EO and directed the ATF on the bump stock ban, which I have been consistently critical of. I thought you would be happy if it’s struck down? Justice Thomas wouldn’t have to specify Bruen standard if morons like you simply understood what “shall not be infringed” means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Well regulated..
Mhmmm…Just like King George III & the Red Coats intended it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Were you under the impression that the Constitution was written by a British monarch? I'd encourage you to go back to sixth grade if so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
https://media4.giphy.com/media/10Jhv...giphy.gif&ct=gQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
The hilarious part is: You really believe that the "well regulated" wording in the 2nd Amendment is about government regulations.
Because you are the Retard Champion of the entire Internet.
Jesus... the lack of self awareness...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Seran, please never leave us.
Oh yeah. Damn you need to know these things Seran! That’s why they wrote the words well regulated in the Constitution. We needed to make sure the mass shootings at Lexington & Concord never ever happens again. Machine muskets & assault powder must be controlled by a centralized government authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
By who? Let me guess...the government? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Even for sarcasm that's pretty dumb dude. The Founders envisioned a country where a safe and secure populace would be capable of protecting itself from the aggressive fauna of the wilderness, be capable of being called into service in times of need, and to protect itself from foreign subversion or domination. What we wound up with is a population at war with itself, daily murders and suicides exceeding battlefield casualties, and a domestic terrorist at the forefront of the GOP nomination who is trying to become the modern day Jefferson Davis and begin a civil war to become an autocratic leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Right, I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with rising up against a tyrannical government. You dumbass. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Let's see what the Founding Fathers have to say about guns:
Quote:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
But yes, I'm sure what they really meant was just that we need guns to fend off wildlife and to help the government.
How are you always this fucking stupid, all day every day, without exception?
You are wrong and stupid on so many levels on the Retard Scale that it's obvious you are incapable of intelligent thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Like on the scale of 1 to Seran on the Retard Scale, this is a 9.
That’s funny Seran. So you don’t think the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with the people fighting against their own government should it become tyrannical, given that’s exactly what we did in the Revolutionary War & our founders figured out that repeatedly happens throughout history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
This is what they're currently trying to avoid... before full control can be obtained, the populous must be disarmed.
And you best believe... the "representatives of the people" are betraying us all.
No? Almost a hundred years passed between the writing of the Second Amendment and the South rising in rebellion, not sure why you think the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with it. Doesn't exactly address Trump trying to pull a Jefferson Davis either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I didn’t say anything about the American Civil War. I was referring to the American Revolutionary War. You know…the one the one we fought against King George III & the British?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Please do yourself a favor. Google Lexington & Concord. Read about what happened there and the events that led up to that battle. Hopefully you can then understand just a little bit of historical context for why our founders thought it’s important for the people, not government, to have access to firearms.
As to the nonsense you said about comparing Donald Trump & Jefferson Davis (who was a Democrat I may add), I’ll say to you what Trump tweeted (X’d?) on J6: Go home with love & in peace.
lol @ how more and more desperate you're becoming every day as Biden sinks more and moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Also, add "The differences between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War" to the list of things Seran is incapable of understanding.
Lexington and Concord were battles in the Civil War?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Good to know.......................
I'm going to rate your post on our scale an 8.
You've said way more seran things.
You seem to be pretty hip on slaughtering history there. The Second Amendment argument has nothing to do without the Revolutionary War, nor does stopping psychotic people from continuing the possess firearms have any impact on our country's ability to defend itself from foreign threats as your side seems to imply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
9Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I literally cannot glean any intelligent thought in your post.. or what you were trying to say.
https://i.imgur.com/22p0phr.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Yeah I’m with PB & Methais in having a difficult time translating your retard speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Give us clarification on this double negative. Are you saying the purpose of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the founders’ experience from the Revolutionary War?Quote:
The Second Amendment argument has nothing to do without the Revolutionary War
You didn’t read about Concord & Lexington, did you? I’ll summarize it for you. The very first thing the British tried to do in order to quell the rebellion is to seize control of all the firearms from the colonists. Kinda makes sense when you rub your two brain cells to think about it… It would have been impossible for the USA to exist & fight a war of independence against a tyrannical government (Great Britain) without guns.
ChatGPT says the two are "the birthplaces of American liberty." So many tools to make your life easier, and Seracist chooses to watch Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Basic causality seems to escape your ability to wrap your head around the subject. Do you have anything backing up your claim that the signatories of the Constitution wrote the Second Amendment due to what happened in the last few example you listed? I presume you're extrapolating without evidence as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
1000% a bot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Sure. There is plenty of evidence on that topic, but probably the best is from Alexander Hamilton. He wrote this in Federalist papers which predates the Bill of Rights:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
And also:Quote:
It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Quote:
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
So... that whole "ZOMG AI WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD WITH THEIR SUPER INTELLECT" is a complete lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arqueto
Because Seranbot is retarded af.
That's cute, but Alexander Hamilton may have been a Constitutional Convention delegate, but he played little part in drafting the Constitution. He wasn't even one of the original drafters of the 23 approved articles written. The fact he wrote about it afterwards in the Federalist Papers is moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
The Federalist Papers were written before the ratification of the Constitution, but ok. I don’t believe you are open to logic of reason. I can’t fix stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You a Star Wars fan? Ever see Revenge of the Sith? You know when Palpatine takes over and reorganizes the Republic as a Galactic Empire, do you find yourself cheering with thunderous applause? I bet you must think to yourself immediately after that scene “there are entirely too many rebel scum running around with unregistered blasters & lightsabers”.
Right, because some soy based NPC bot who can barely construct a coherent sentence 90% of the time like yourself totally knows better than someone like Alexander Hamilton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You claimed the second amendment was written on the basis of an altercation with the British and cited one of the Federalist papers. This proved false because the constitution wasn't drafted by the Hamilton, and his 'opinion piece' followed the drafting by the Framers and the signatures of all of the delegates. Now you wanna split hairs because it was still pending ratification, ignoring the fact the constitution wasn't amended prior to said ratification. Stop being a loser and just admit you were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
By all means Seran, since you are so knowledgeable on the subject and are making the argument that the 2nd Amendment has no historical context tied to the events of the American Revolution, why did our founders write that in the Bill of Rights and ratify in 1791?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
(Federalist papers were published in 1788, also included James Madison & John Jay, and were specifically written to promote the ratification of the Constitution for context. Alexander Hamilton should be your hero as he advocated for the necessity of a strong federal government as opposed to a loose confederacy of states)
Did the third amendment also have nothing to do with the Revolution and the Quartering Act the British passed in 1765? How about the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment for that matter? It seems to me that the Bill of Rights was specifically written to limit the power of the federal government and acknowledge definitive liberties of the people since those were not afforded when America was a British colony, but let’s hear your take on it.
Separate question for you Seran. If Trump took over as a dictator, suspended the Constitution & all elements of democracy, and all your worst fears came true…would you be better or worse off owning and knowing how to use one of those scary assault weapons of war? Would it be a problem in that situation if only Trump’s federally employed loyalists were the only ones that had access to firearms?
His limp wrist will snap like a twig if he ever shot a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I'd like to submit this quote as an entry to be permanently displayed in the Fail Wing of the Internet Smithsonian for its incredible lack of self awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
He really stabbed my heart deep with that zinger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Seran, I thought we were friends bro? What the hell? :rofl:
Again, the publishing of the Federalist Papers followed the drafting and signing of the Constitution, quit trying to argue they had any impact on it's signing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Everything else is just speculation on your part, which you're welcome to, but I'll not waste my time on arguing what amounts to little more than your point of view.
The Federalist Papers was written way before the Bill of Rights & the 2nd Amendment was written. I made no such claim it was written before the Constitution, and in fact specified the purpose was to support it’s ratification. You asked for historical evidence to support my claim (not really mine as it’s common knowledge) that the 2nd Amendment was shaped by the events that happened at Lexington & Concord, and I gave just one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Again I implore you to educate us all why the 2nd Amendment was written, any historical context, and for what purpose. If I understood you correctly in the past, you believe it gives power to the government to regulate firearms? We would all really like to hear you expand upon that claim if so.
If you go back a few pages, you'll see him talk about how the 2nd is for protection against wildlife. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Ahh yes. So Seran, the 2nd Amendment was written to allow us some protection against Big Foot? Is that your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Armaments held publicly as necessary for every state to keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia. The original articles creating our union as the precursor to the Constitution was clear that the right to bear arms belonged to well regulated militias. This was also written expressly in the Constitution and the common interpretation until a bunch of conservative hillbillies decided to misinterpret the test in 2008.Quote:
No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.
Article Vi, paragraph IV Articles of Confederation
Gotcha. So you reject the definition of the words militia and well-regulated in the time & context they were written into the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I don’t suppose any evidence presented could ever cause you to rethink that position?
So you don't believe in the 3 branches of government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Breaking news on the ATF pistol brace rule, a federal judge created a nationwide injunction against the ATF from enforcing the new rule.
Federal Judge Blocks ATF From Arresting Millions Of Pistol Brace Owners
https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/09...-brace-owners/
He never has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I, the Supreme Court and Federal/State agencies prior to 2008, constitutional scholars and a host of others reject your fabrication that a militia refers to a single individual that cannot be regulated. Just waiting for a few conservative justices to lose their seats so the mockery of constitutional law passed in Heller and a few other notable rejections of stare decisis are overturned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Fair enough and good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
In the meantime, I’d appreciate if you tell your freedom hating cronies to at least respect those decisions as the law of the land & not violate their oath of office until at such time the law changes. I don’t always agree with every law, but as a citizen I do my best to follow them. It’s not cool to call an entire branch of government illegitimate. One might even say such rhetoric is…insurrectionary…