The Constitution means exactly what it says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry.

The USA is totally unique and unlike any other country on the globe.

As such, any claims that "registration leads to confiscation" has been proven, are false.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you read up on the history of the california assault weapons ban, more commonly called the Roberti-Roos Act, and how it started with requiring the people of california who currently owned AK and AR type rifles to register those weapons, only to be mailed a letter from the attorney general some time afterwards ordering them to surrender the weapon or prove to local sheriff it had been rendered inoperable. This affected approximately 1550 people in 1992.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Then I suggest you read up on the history of the california assault weapons ban, more commonly called the Roberti-Roos Act, and how it started with requiring the people of california who currently owned AK and AR type rifles to register those weapons, only to be mailed a letter from the attorney general some time afterwards ordering them to surrender the weapon or prove to local sheriff it had been rendered inoperable. This affected approximately 1550 people in 1992.
Click to expand...

Do the people of California still have the right to own guns, yes or no?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Then I suggest you read up on the history of the california assault weapons ban, more commonly called the Roberti-Roos Act, and how it started with requiring the people of california who currently owned AK and AR type rifles to register those weapons, only to be mailed a letter from the attorney general some time afterwards ordering them to surrender the weapon or prove to local sheriff it had been rendered inoperable. This affected approximately 1550 people in 1992.
Click to expand...



Clearly unconstitutional. The Second Amendment places no limits on the type or quantity of firearms owned by the people.


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.




gunner.gif
biggun.gif
shooter.gif
​
 
SmarterThanFew bravely took up arms and straightened those Cali-Commie gun-grabbers out....didn't he?

Didn't he?
mexiuhoh.gif
 
The NV weren't fat and lazy like the average American today, and had support from their government, as well as other powerful governments. There's simply no comparison.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The NV weren't fat and lazy like the average American today, and had support from their government, as well as other powerful governments. There's simply no comparison.
Click to expand...

They also weren't as educated as the average american. Nor would they have access to the technologies at the disposal of those who would be a part of a revolution in this country.

Support would be available from several sources.


Our gov't is particularly vulnerable to public opinion. With any conflicts taking place on our soil, it would be nearly impossible to contain the information on what happens.

If you look at the disruption caused by the "DC Sniper", and multiply that by hundreds, you would get an inkling of what revolutionaries in this country would be capable of. And ours would be far better at it than Malvo and his buddy were. (the fact that they called him a sniper still galls me)
 
WinterBorn said:
They also weren't as educated as the average american. Nor would they have access to the technologies at the disposal of those who would be a part of a revolution in this country.

Support would be available from several sources.


Our gov't is particularly vulnerable to public opinion. With any conflicts taking place on our soil, it would be nearly impossible to contain the information on what happens.

If you look at the disruption caused by the "DC Sniper", and multiply that by hundreds, you would get an inkling of what revolutionaries in this country would be capable of. And ours would be far better at it than Malvo and his buddy were. (the fact that they called him a sniper still galls me)
Click to expand...

he wasn't a sniper? last i checked his covert shots taken from distances are what snipers do.
 
Yurt said:
he wasn't a sniper? last i checked his covert shots taken from distances are what snipers do.
Click to expand...

There were 13 or 14 shots fired from a solid rest at ranges of 50 to 100 yards, and 10 people were killed. They were not looking for specific targets, so they were just shooting at targets of opportunity. That is not very good shooting skills by any stretch of the imagination. They bushwacked a dozen people, but they were not snipers.

Hell, I know a dozen deer hunters that have killed a deer with each of their last dozen shots.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Please explain to one not quite as knowledgeable on matters of the constitution.

Why is there wording regarding militias included in the 2nd amendment if the 2nd deals with the people's right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

Exactly what I've always thought. Why even have the clause about militias?
 
WinterBorn said:
There were 13 or 14 shots fired from a solid rest at ranges of 50 to 100 yards, and 10 people were killed. They were not looking for specific targets, so they were just shooting at targets of opportunity. That is not very good shooting skills by any stretch of the imagination. They bushwacked a dozen people, but they were not snipers.

Hell, I know a dozen deer hunters that have killed a deer with each of their last dozen shots.
Click to expand...

shooting at deer does not quality anyone to be a sniper. these guys were snipers under current definitions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sniper
 
christiefan915 said:
Exactly what I've always thought. Why even have the clause about militias?
Click to expand...

of course christie skips over all the posts that deal with this question....WB's and the SCOTUS case which explain the matter quite concisely. for that matter....zappy skipped it to....because it doesn't fit your world view, therefore, it doesn't exist.

i don't understand how you two can still be "wondering" when the question has been answered.
 
christiefan915 said:
Exactly what I've always thought. Why even have the clause about militias?
Click to expand...

the framers, colonists, and revolutionaries considered themselves the 'militia'. The private citizens who would come to the call of arms with their own weapons. The militia is not, nor was it ever, the national guard. Therefore, the clause 'a well regulated militia' is depicted and defined as the people skilled in their own arms, as in we the people who are skilled with weapons are necessary to the security of a free state.

also, congress only has two responsibilities concerning the militia. arming and training. look it up.
 
Yurt said:
of course christie skips over all the posts that deal with this question....WB's and the SCOTUS case which explain the matter quite concisely. for that matter....zappy skipped it to....because it doesn't fit your world view, therefore, it doesn't exist.

i don't understand how you two can still be "wondering" when the question has been answered.
Click to expand...
Its simple Yurt: 'tards.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Since the development of advanced arms and the subsequent usurpation by the government of the people's ability to own advanced arms, a violent overthrow of the government is a near-zero possibility. The only feasible ways that I see to correct the current situation is to:

1. Vote the liberals out of office and replace with conservatives and libertarians. The 2010 election cycle showed that the people are willing to do this but several more with the same magnitude of results is needed.
2. Let the liberals run the country into bankruptcy, followed by a forced overthrow.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, single-party government. You mean like the old Soviet union?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top