Thread: Automatic weapons

Originally Posted by Defensor

Really, where does it state that? Quote, please.

Read the link.

Originally Posted by Bourne

So, in your opinion, no one in government service may own or possess a firearm but anyone else may?

Correct, the list of rights and powers of government in the Constitution is exhaustive.

Originally Posted by Bourne

Read the link.

Sorry, quote please.

Originally Posted by Bourne

No. The second amendment only pertains to militias. Private possession and ownership can be regulated.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

No, the Second Amendment states "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Christ, there was a major supreme court decision clarifying this just this summer. You liberals aren't allowed to read things that point out your errors?

Any normal person reading that amendment can see that it guarantees private ownership of guns, what's wrong with you 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.

Read the entire link, in particular US v. Miller.

That does not pertain to private possession. Private possession and ownership is subject to federal and state regulation.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Sorry, steezer, you can't just make up bullshit claims as you go along.

Stitch

I knew you would respond as such, but I take what you say with a grain of salt because you obviously don't know much about the intentions of our founding fathers. I can state in no uncertain terms that I am correct in making that assumption.

You are so predictable. If the costitution was written to be open to interpretation for future generations because the writers didn't know what the future held.

So no I think your comments are based on a lack of knowledge.

Steezer

Originally Posted by Defensor

Correct, the list of rights and powers of government in the Constitution is exhaustive.

Following your logic, are you saying that a person judged mentally ill, a person prone to domestic violence, a person addicted to controlled substances or a child may possess a firearm?

Originally Posted by Bourne

Read the entire link, in particular US v. Miller.

That does not pertain to private possession. Private possession and ownership is subject to federal and state regulation.

Oh, good ole US v Miller, that falsely stated that the government could indeed regulate firearms citing the lack of utility to the militia of sawed off shotguns of less than 18 inches in length.

Unfortunately, that argument was completely bogus since sawed off shotguns were extremely efficacious in ridding Allied trenches of unwanted Germans soldiers during the Great War, something the court had to have known.

So, you're citing a cased based on a lie as the excuse for denying all Americans their constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Obviously you must be a firm believer in judicial infallibility.

Which do you think was more right, the court's decision on Plessy v Ferguson that enabled the doctrine of Separate But Equal, or the court's decision on Brown v Board of Education, the discarded Separate But Equal?

If you're mature enough to admit that the USSC has performed major and most serious fuckups in American history, are you also mature enough to admit that the judgement passed on US vs Miller, which was based on a lie, was wrong?

I don't think you are.

Originally Posted by Bourne

Following your logic, are you saying that a person judged mentally ill, a person prone to domestic violence, a person addicted to controlled substances or a child may possess a firearm?

If they are dangers to society, they belong in prison or a mental institution. Otherwise, free people have freedom.

Originally Posted by steezer

Stitch

I knew you would respond as such, but I take what you say with a grain of salt because you obviously don't know much about the intentions of our founding fathers. I can state in no uncertain terms that I am correct in making that assumption.

You are so predictable. If the costitution was written to be open to interpretation for future generations because the writers didn't know what the future held.

So no I think your comments are based on a lack of knowledge.

Steezer

So in translation basically what you said is "I'm right because I know I'm right." Good game, Stitch.