Virginia man arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon

[Marine Cpl]

It's funny. You defend one bad court ruling with another bad court ruling. It's as if you refuse to understand what's being said about the courts or you just don't want to or your mind is incapable of grasping the notion that courts can inject politics, impartiality, or conjecture to make a ruling to add restrictions to amendments that don't have any unlike other amendments that do clearly have written restrictions.

 

[Acer-m14]

the 1A does not end in shall not infringe ... nor do any others .. just one , the 2nd

the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation

so that's all find and dandy .. the rest on the 2A is BS political feelings

 

[Marine Cpl]

Hmmm. Let's see. Maybe I can find another court ruling to show these guys.

 

[nortatoga]

Hmmm. Let's see. Maybe I can find another court ruling to show these guys.

No Will that ruling is in the Heller decision,

Have a Nice Day!

 

[Truebeliever]

I destroyed your argument in previous threads. Sorry. Quotes from the founders themselves are proof that the judges pick and choose and use conjecture as ways to limit our rights. And the fact that you have to sell it a certain way so that the Democrat judges can vote on it or put it off because there are too many Democrat judges proves the court's corruption and impartiality.

You'll take their decisions all the way to the slaughterhouse.

Dude, if you think your argument against people who know the law and history better than you is working, I think you should re-examine other things in your life too.

You really don’t have a grasp of how the constitution came about or how the courts work now or even then.

You keep quoting the federalist papers. You do realize that it is only a guide to the thoughts of argument for a strong federal government and not actual “canon” of law right? Do you know why?

Because the founding fathers disagreed about things even then and it was written by Hamilton with help of a few others.

It’s like saying the argument on the senate floor must be how the law must be interpreted. It’s a guide but not the law itself because of disagreement on what things mean can still be a yes vote on the bill.

What proof of what I am saying. Go look at our legislature branch. It was a compromise between two plans. The senate based one of each state having an equal vote and a plan where it was like an assembly representation by population.

We are telling you that your legal tact is wrong, your beliefs about how the system was 200 years ago is wrong.

 

[Truebeliever]

the 1A does not end in shall not infringe ... nor do any others .. just one , the 2nd



so that's all find and dandy .. the rest on the 2A is BS political feelings

Look from a legal stand point “shall not be infringed “ was written when it applied only to the federal government.

The 1st admendment says “congress shall make no law”. It is just as powerful a statement against the limiting of free speech as the “shall not infringe “ statement .

Remember that until Heller “ shall not be infringed “ was also believed to be a”collective right” of the state and the well regulated milita part gave thevstates the ability to regulate it.

And the expansion of the commerce clause is how congress gets away with gun control laws.

 

[nortatoga]

@Truebeliever

 

[Marine Cpl]

He's repeating the same arguments over and over that have been debunked already. You're guilty of doing the same thing as well.

 

[Truebeliever]

He's repeating the same arguments over and over that have been debunked already. You're guilty of doing the same thing as well.

Debunked only in a delusional mind. Clearly the courts disagree with you including the justices that are for 2nd Admendment rights. Historians disagree with you. Even the founding fathers disagree with you. But keep cherrypicking Quotes,

 

[Marine Cpl]

Debunked only in a delusional mind. Clearly the courts disagree with you including the justices that are for 2nd Admendment rights. Historians disagree with you. Even the founding fathers disagree with you. But keep cherrypicking Quotes,

The courts.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You. The courts said yada yada yada.

Me. The Constitution says this that's why the courts are wrong. Here is XYZ quotes from the founders themselves in the Federalist papers.

You. But the courts say yada yada yada.

Me. Didn't I just show you that the courts were wrong?

 

[Truebeliever]

You. The courts said yada yada yada.

Me. The Constitution says this that's why the courts are wrong. Here is XYZ quotes from the founders themselves in the Federalist papers.

You. But the courts say yada yada yada.

Me. Didn't I just show you that the courts were wrong?

Hello, hello.

Who wrote the federalist papers? How many of the founding fathers?

The constitution and the bill of rights was a limit on the federal government and not the states.

Did you read the part where Hamilton argues against the need for the bill of rights in opposition to James Madison because he felt the constitution was already a bill of rights?

Please remember what the federalist papers were. A political argument to convince the people andthe state governments to adopt the constitution.

Not all the founding fathers agreed with it and it was written under false name by the authors who primarily were Madison, John Jay , and Hamilton. Not all of them agreed on everything in the federalist papers and the Bill of rights is a contrast to Hamilton’s position . The other founders obviously disagreed with him.

Again, the federalist papers were a political argument and not all of the founders agreed with everything in it. Just like two politicans can fight for the same law or position and disagree to its exact meaning.

Again you don’t know as much as you think you do.

 

[Shadow2]

this thread is a shit show ...

 

[Marine Cpl]

Hello, hello.

Who wrote the federalist papers? How many of the founding fathers?

The constitution and the bill of rights was a limit on the federal government and not the states.

Did you read the part where Hamilton argues against the need for the bill of rights in opposition to James Madison because he felt the constitution was already a bill of rights?

Please remember what the federalist papers were. A political argument to convince the people andthe state governments to adopt the constitution.

Not all the founding fathers agreed with it and it was written under false name by the authors who primarily were Madison, John Jay , and Hamilton. Not all of them agreed on everything in the federalist papers and the Bill of rights is a contrast to Hamilton’s position . The other founders obviously disagreed with him.

Again, the federalist papers were a political argument and not all of the founders agreed with everything in it. Just like two politicans can fight for the same law or position and disagree to its exact meaning.

Again you don’t know as much as you think you do.

It's this quote below from the English Bill of Rights? Yes or no.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Is this the 3rd Amendment of the US Constitution below? Yes or no.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Does the British right to arms above and our 3rd amendment above have restrictions? Yes or no?

Do you see any restrictions mentioned in our 2nd Amendment below like you do in the 3rd amendment or the British Bill of Rights in regards to arms? Yes or no.

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.


Answer honestly please. Yes or no's are to be answered with yes or no's.

 

[nortatoga]

Get ready to twist your shorts up even more!

"Importantly, the Heller Court listed several examples of such longstanding (and therefore constitutionally permissible) regulations, such as laws against concealed carry and laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons...The Court stated that analysis of whether other gun regulations are permissible must be based on their "historical justifications."" - Justice Kavanaugh

 

[Marine Cpl]

Get ready to twist your shorts up even more!

"Importantly, the Heller Court listed several examples of such longstanding (and therefore constitutionally permissible) regulations, such as laws against concealed carry and laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons...The Court stated that analysis of whether other gun regulations are permissible must be based on their "historical justifications."" - Justice Kavanaugh

You say that with such glee. You really love 2A infringements. You make me sick.

Most Fudds are ignorant. You aren't. That makes it worse.

 

[Truebeliever]

It's this quote below from the English Bill of Rights? Yes or no.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Is this the 3rd Amendment of the US Constitution below? Yes or no.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Does the British right to arms above and our 3rd amendment above have restrictions? Yes or no?

Do you see any restrictions mentioned in our 2nd Amendment below like you do in the 3rd amendment or the British Bill of Rights in regards to arms? Yes or no.

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.


Answer honestly please. Yes or no's are to be answered with yes or no's.

Yes there are restrictions in the body of the phases.

And your point is?

Some People would say “well regulated “ is the restrictive part of the 2nd. Hence gun control on the federal level was by the commerce clause or by tax as it’s legal excuse.


Why the words “well regulated “.


Let’s go further on Semantics of it. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. What is the right of the people as understood back then .? Some anti gun person might say that “the right “ was not absolute and what did the founders believe that right to be. Similar to the freedom of the press but it applies to journalists on other mediums right?

A founding father might have said “yes, you can have your rifle and some ammo but you can’t stock up barrels of black powder that could destroy the block. They did have such regulations. Hence Scilica’s common use standard because he researched the historical record of that right and what it was thought to mean back then. He is the one who explained to the court the meaning of a militia as it was then as individuals who come together rather than a standing “national guard” . And the comma of the “well regulated “ clause is intentionally separate from the right of the people.

But am happy to see you are trying to understand the textualism employed in determining what the founders agreed to in the bill of rights.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The preface doesn't mean anything. It just a reason. That reason isn't an absolute. The statement following is what's absolute.

It could have said, "A well regulated acrobat, being necessary to a fun circus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and it still would give that power to the people.

And it was already established what well regulated means. (In working order) And militia has already been established what it consisted of. And who the people are has also been established.

References to the Militia in The Federalist

 

[spat]

It's really very simple, if you allow for "anything upheld by SCOTUS" then you allow for any level of infringement, up to a Mexico or UK level ban. Eventually such bans *will* be upheld.

 

[GOPerfect]

Question....

Serious question at that.

If all laws that are either against the 2A, or any laws that infringe upon that Right, are in fact upheld by the Courts (all of them), what do we do?

SCOTUS has final say, that is the rule of law in the US. They dictate what is and what is not in violation of the Constitution. We know Congress is not going to do anything, anytime soon to over rule the Court; what is the answer?

Sit here, on our forum and just complain and bitch?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Question....

Serious question at that.

If all laws that are either against the 2A, or any laws that infringe upon that Right, are in fact upheld by the Courts (all of them), what do we do?

SCOTUS has final say, that is the rule of law in the US. They dictate what is and what is not in violation of the Constitution. We know Congress is not going to do anything, anytime soon to over rule the Court; what is the answer?

Sit here, on our forum and just complain and bitch?

The only thing you can do is root out the corruption by force as the founders intended but that'll never happen. Too many sheep. Too many pensions. Too many mortgages. Too many tuitions. Ect.

You also need money to buy food instead of everyone growing their own like in the olden days. Your family would starve if you left to stand up.

So all we can do is bitch.

 

[GOPerfect]

So all we can do is bitch.

That is what I figured.

 

[Marine Cpl]

That is what I figured.

You said it yourself. Guns are the least of our problems. That statement holds true why no one will ever stand up in meaningful numbers and do what needs to be done. They have other shit to worry about.

 

[GOPerfect]

You said it yourself. Guns are the least of our problems. That statement holds true why no one will ever stand up in meaningful numbers and do what needs to be done. They have other shit to worry about.

Take it correctly... I love to bitch, moan and complain!

 

[spat]

Question....

Serious question at that.

If all laws that are either against the 2A, or any laws that infringe upon that Right, are in fact upheld by the Courts (all of them), what do we do?

SCOTUS has final say, that is the rule of law in the US. They dictate what is and what is not in violation of the Constitution. We know Congress is not going to do anything, anytime soon to over rule the Court; what is the answer?

Sit here, on our forum and just complain and bitch?

King George was the ultimate legal authority when gun control came to Lexington and Concord, just saying....

 

[Marine Cpl]

Take it correctly... I love to bitch, moan and complain!

So to be clear, what are you saying? That it shouldn't be talked about since we can't do anything about it?

 

[GOPerfect]

So to be clear, what are you saying? That it shouldn't be talked about since we can't do anything about it?

No, not at all. Just wondering if substance and action or just bitching

 

[Marine Cpl]

No, not at all. Just wondering if substance and action or just bitching

Really? You were wondering if substance and action were happening? What would that consist of? A lone gunman Podmonkey style?

 

[GOPerfect]

Really? You were wondering if substance and action were happening? What would that consist of? A lone gunman Podmonkey style?

I don't know....

All I ever see is people complaining. Bitching. Trying to quote the inner thoughts of the Founding Fathers.

I see very little being done. I do not see Pro-gun people running for office. I do not see these great gun organizations lining up to do any good.

Gun manufacturers still sell their guns to Law Enforcement.

I just don't see anyone fighting, so I just assumed all were only bitching.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't know....

All I ever see is people complaining. Bitching. Trying to quote the inner thoughts of the Founding Fathers.

I see very little being done. I do not see Pro-gun people running for office. I do not see these great gun organizations lining up to do any good.

Gun manufacturers still sell their guns to Law Enforcement.

I just don't see anyone fighting, so I just assumed all were only bitching.

And that's all you'll ever see sadly. Along with people defending those that take them away until they are all gone.