Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 107

Thread: accessories are not protected by the 2nd Amendment

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
    I'm a gun owner and defender of the 2nd amendment. So please explain to me why bumpstocks that mimic fully automatic weapons are any different from fully automatic weapons that are illegal to own without a special license?
    if you were a real defender of the 2nd Amendment, you would disagree that a special license is required to own a full automatic, thus your own premise and position is inherently flawed, making you sound like a fudd/butter
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    23,257
    Thanks
    6,280
    Thanked 16,519 Times in 11,562 Posts
    Groans
    1,236
    Groaned 513 Times in 483 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    if you were a real defender of the 2nd Amendment, you would disagree that a special license is required to own a full automatic, thus your own premise and position is inherently flawed, making you sound like a fudd/butter
    Horse shit no one has any reason to own a full automatic weapon. Other than making one feel like Rambo a fully automatic weapon is useless, you can't hunt with it you can't use it for home protection the only thing it is good for is to make little men feel like big men. Hell in a close fight I could take you down with my semiauto 9mm before your barrel moved 3 inches. And in a distance fight my 300 Win Mag could drop you at 300 yds far more than the effective range of a full automatic. So take you bluster and blow it out your ass.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Eagle_Eye For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (07-07-2019)

  4. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,722
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,244 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 161 Times in 153 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
    Horse shit no one has any reason to own a full automatic weapon. Other than making one feel like Rambo a fully automatic weapon is useless, you can't hunt with it you can't use it for home protection the only thing it is good for is to make little men feel like big men. Hell in a close fight I could take you down with my semiauto 9mm before your barrel moved 3 inches. And in a distance fight my 300 Win Mag could drop you at 300 yds far more than the effective range of a full automatic. So take you bluster and blow it out your ass.
    He thinks his rights are already infringed but doesn't want to do anything about it.

  5. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy View Post
    Its the right to keep and bear arms, not self defense though self defense is allowed by law.
    Dont move the goalposts.
    ?

  6. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy View Post
    No.
    Again with self defense ? No mention of self defense in the 2nd.
    Thats the goalpost you are attempting to move.
    Quit it.
    Self defense IS mentioned in the 2nd, but not by that phrase.

    The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

    1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias.
    2) The right of the people (the individual) to defend themselves by bearing arms.

    The 2nd amendment does NOT grant these rights. It only acknowledges what is already there and specifically directs the federal and State governments to not interfere with these rights.

  7. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Badguy View Post
    And yet, here you are, your 2A rights violated by Trump, and how many people have you shot?
    No need. Just make your own.

  8. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    bump stocks and suppressors and high capacity magazines are not protected by the 2d Amendment, unless the gun bunnies are now adopting living document philosophy.
    They are both protected.

  9. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    if you were a real defender of the 2nd Amendment, you would disagree that a special license is required to own a full automatic, thus your own premise and position is inherently flawed, making you sound like a fudd/butter
    Quite right. The 2nd amendment does not specify a particular type of action on a gun.

  10. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
    Horse shit no one has any reason to own a full automatic weapon. Other than making one feel like Rambo a fully automatic weapon is useless, you can't hunt with it you can't use it for home protection the only thing it is good for is to make little men feel like big men. Hell in a close fight I could take you down with my semiauto 9mm before your barrel moved 3 inches. And in a distance fight my 300 Win Mag could drop you at 300 yds far more than the effective range of a full automatic. So take you bluster and blow it out your ass.
    A reason to own one is not required. They have the right to own one.

  11. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,036 Times in 13,846 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Self defense IS mentioned in the 2nd, but not by that phrase.

    The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

    1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias.
    2) The right of the people (the individual) to defend themselves by bearing arms.

    The 2nd amendment does NOT grant these rights. It only acknowledges what is already there and specifically directs the federal and State governments to not interfere with these rights.
    Wrong

    The Second Amendment as written: ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Now where does any of that say "the right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias," or, "the right of the people ..... to defend themselves by bearing arms."

    Even the strictest interpretation of the Amendment is stymied by the prefatory clause alone, which the SCOTUS could never get by in over two hundred years in all the cases bought before it regarding the Amendment. Roberts could only do it by completely ignoring the prefatory clause, which pretty much says all one needs to know about Originalism. You've done it by offering another NRA, gun manufactures, "explanation"

    And the real irony of the whole thing is that any Constitutional right can be regulated, none are absolute, never have been, never will be, so all the importing of the Second Amendment and what it supposedly means is inane, guns can be regulated

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    jimmymccready (07-07-2019)

  13. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    23,257
    Thanks
    6,280
    Thanked 16,519 Times in 11,562 Posts
    Groans
    1,236
    Groaned 513 Times in 483 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    A reason to own one is not required. They have the right to own one.
    Wrong answer the National Firearms Act says you can't unless licensed so sorry.

  14. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
    Horse shit no one has any reason to own a full automatic weapon. Other than making one feel like Rambo a fully automatic weapon is useless, you can't hunt with it you can't use it for home protection the only thing it is good for is to make little men feel like big men. Hell in a close fight I could take you down with my semiauto 9mm before your barrel moved 3 inches. And in a distance fight my 300 Win Mag could drop you at 300 yds far more than the effective range of a full automatic. So take you bluster and blow it out your ass.
    the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, nor is it about home defense. it's about killing government agents. and if that automatic is the M16A2, i'm an expert shot at 500 yards and I don't need the scope.

    marine-corps 500.jpg
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  15. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    23,257
    Thanks
    6,280
    Thanked 16,519 Times in 11,562 Posts
    Groans
    1,236
    Groaned 513 Times in 483 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    A reason to own one is not required. They have the right to own one.
    Try reading all the statutes that say you are wrong and are deemed constitutional. So your argument is moot at best.

  16. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Wrong

    The Second Amendment as written: ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Now where does any of that say "the right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias," or, "the right of the people ..... to defend themselves by bearing arms."

    Even the strictest interpretation of the Amendment is stymied by the prefatory clause alone, which the SCOTUS could never get by in over two hundred years in all the cases bought before it regarding the Amendment. Roberts could only do it by completely ignoring the prefatory clause, which pretty much says all one needs to know about Originalism. You've done it by offering another NRA, gun manufactures, "explanation"

    And the real irony of the whole thing is that any Constitutional right can be regulated, none are absolute, never have been, never will be, so all the importing of the Second Amendment and what it supposedly means is inane, guns can be regulated
    every bit of historical documentation states very clearly that the right is an individual right and that congress has no power to regulate our arms. that they do is a violation, but the apathetic and cowardly people, LIKE YOU, want that to feel safer in your tyranny. the prefatory clause you refer to does not specify ONLY state/government authorized military units because the US Constitution, art 1. sec 10, clause 3 states very clearly that the states are not allowed to have their own troops/army without congressional approval.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  17. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
    Wrong answer the National Firearms Act says you can't unless licensed so sorry.
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

    There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

    A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

    The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

    "An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance."
    -Theophilus Parsons, January 23, 1788

    The writings of scholars who have written on the subject are virtually united on the point that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not simply the state national guards. — PROFESSOR GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS

    That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87

    The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. — Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

    I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. — George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

Similar Threads

  1. Neo-Nazi Harassment Not Protected by First Amendment, Judge Rules
    By Guno צְבִי in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-16-2018, 10:29 PM
  2. Portland mayor - "Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment"
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-01-2017, 01:09 AM
  3. YOUR DNA: should it be protected by 4th Amendment or not?
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-26-2011, 12:28 PM
  4. Is this protected by the fourth amendment or not?
    By Socrtease in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-15-2010, 06:00 PM
  5. 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-20-2009, 03:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •