True or false?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date

Any law restricting the possession of any weapon by a US citizen is unconstitutional

  • Total voters
    4
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Any law restricting the possession of any weapon by any US citizen is unconstitutional.
 
Everybody DANCE! said:
False. Laws may restrict arms to citizens if they have been removed by prosecution and conviction as per the 4A.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


How does the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable search and seizure trump the 2nd amendment? Are you saying a specific Oath or affirmation allows the seizure of arms?
 
Yurt said:
dude, stop SPAMMING the board with this. why? do you not have a fulfilling life?
Click to expand...


I can't post a poll on a constitutional issue because I'm "spamming", but you fill thread after thread with your (usually off-topic) obsessive hatred for me, Dune, Onceler, Zappa, etc. and that's not spamming the board?

No wonder you get banned.

Quit trying to self-moderate. I don't care about your compulsive behavior.

Stay out of my threads if you don't like 'em.
 
\\(\()/)// said:
I can't post a poll on a constitutional issue because I'm "spamming", but you fill thread after thread with your (usually off-topic) obsessive hatred for me, Dune, Onceler, Zappa, etc. and that's not spamming the board?

No wonder you get banned.

Quit trying to self-moderate. I don't care about your compulsive behavior.

Stay out of my threads if you don't like 'em.
Click to expand...

you can do whatever you want. i'm just asking you stop spamming the board with the same bullshit. you made 20 posts about this and when you didn't get the attention you wanted, you had to create a thread about it. crybaby. you don't get the attention you need, so you bump threads, create thread after thread about the same thing.

i don't hate you or the others. stop being such a baby. just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they hate you.

i see you're still obsessing about you lie i was banned. you're disturbed.

asking you something is not "self" moderating idiot. your threads are all over the board, when i had you on ignore, i had to see the same thread over and over. why don't you grow up and stop obsessing about guns? move out of your mom's house. get a life.
 
Yurt said:
you can do whatever you want. i'm just asking you stop spamming the board with the same bullshit. you made 20 posts about this and when you didn't get the attention you wanted, you had to create a thread about it.
Click to expand...


I "made 20 posts about" the intent of the second amendment? Link up. We both know you can't.

As to my "need for attention", your assumption that you know other people's unstated motivations is what earned you the nickname Yurskin.

I think you're projecting.
Yurt said:
crybaby.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Yurt said:
you don't get the attention you need, so you bump threads, create thread after thread about the same thing.
Click to expand...

Shall we look through your threads for diversity of subject matter and apply the same "reasoning", Yurskin?

Yurt said:
i don't hate you or the others. stop being such a baby. just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they hate you.
Click to expand...

Your "disagreeing" often has nothing to do with the topic, and focuses on the poster. I see hate. I personally don't give a fuck what you call it.
Yurt said:
i see you're still obsessing about you lie i was banned. you're disturbed.
Click to expand...

I mentioned it in case you don't know why your antics are unwelcome at the forums that opted to exclude you. We both know you've been banned, so deal with it.
Yurt said:
asking you something is not "self" moderating idiot. your threads are all over the board, when i had you on ignore, i had to see the same thread over and over. why don't you grow up and stop obsessing about guns? move out of your mom's house. get a life.
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion, obsessively posting off-topic replies in virtually every thread started by someone you hate is exactly like what Alias was doing - having a tantrum and making threads hard to follow because the board management won't enforce your personal vendettas.

Now, one more time: stay out of my threads if you don't like 'em. Stop spamming with off-topic bullshit after my posts. Grow up.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that should be 5th Amendment and it should only occur during the incarceration. Once a citizen is released, they should have all their rights restored to them.
Click to expand...

If they are a such a danger that they should be "banned" from weapons they probably shouldn't be released.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that should be 5th Amendment and it should only occur during the incarceration. Once a citizen is released, they should have all their rights restored to them.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I didn't think the 4th entered into it, and since Heller there has been a lot of activity on restoring rights to ex-felons.
 
\\(\()/)// said:
Thanks. I didn't think the 4th entered into it, and since Heller there has been a lot of activity on restoring rights to ex-felons.
Click to expand...

alot of convicted felons have tried to use heller as a defense for 'felon in possession', yet to date, every court in the land has used the 'reasonable restrictions' dicta from heller to deny that defense. I think it's wrong, unconstitutional, and a blatant attempt by government to keep people disarmed.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I think what Damo means is that not all felons are violent. white collar crimes are non violent felonies, so why should someone convicted of mail fraud or tax evasion lose their 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...


Then why didn't he say that? What "danger" does an ex-felon pose that anyone else doesn't?

Pre-emptive action against a citizen because they "might" do something bad?

Absurd.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
alot of convicted felons have tried to use heller as a defense for 'felon in possession', yet to date, every court in the land has used the 'reasonable restrictions' dicta from heller to deny that defense. I think it's wrong, unconstitutional, and a blatant attempt by government to keep people disarmed.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't felons have their rights restored when they've completed their sentence?
 
\\(\()/)// said:
Shouldn't felons have their rights restored when they've completed their sentence?
Click to expand...

Yup. Hence the need for a logical approach. If they are too dangerous to exercise their rights responsibly without infringing on the rights of others what kind of sentence should they receive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top