WTF.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How are you going to take their weapons away? They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment. These people are idiots and I don't want them having weapons. The only way to deter somebody's power is to have (more) power yourself.
Good the way the presenters on all sides of these arguments twist the facts to fit their agenda isn't it?west-phoenix-az wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI
actually many rulings by the supreme court on the 2nd amendment explicitly give the government the right to regulate and restrict weapons. Try again.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How are you going to take their weapons away? They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment. These people are idiots and I don't want them having weapons. The only way to deter somebody's power is to have (more) power yourself.
Yeah Ken I'm really glad the Supreme Court has always ruled in tune with the Constitution. The U.S. Government would never infringe on our Constitutional rights.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually many rulings by the supreme court on the 2nd amendment explicitly give the government the right to regulate and restrict weapons. Try again.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How are you going to take their weapons away? They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment. These people are idiots and I don't want them having weapons. The only way to deter somebody's power is to have (more) power yourself.
Seriously what are you talking about, every post you make seems to contradict itself at least once.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah Ken I'm really glad the Supreme Court has always ruled in tune with the Constitution. The U.S. Government would never infringe on our Constitutional rights.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually many rulings by the supreme court on the 2nd amendment explicitly give the government the right to regulate and restrict weapons. Try again.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How are you going to take their weapons away? They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment. These people are idiots and I don't want them having weapons. The only way to deter somebody's power is to have (more) power yourself.
Try again
Last edited by coke (2013-01-10 13:35:01)
I forgot, you aren't a US citizen are you? I probably shouldn't have assumed you know how the three branches of the US government work. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret and rule on laws enacted by the legislative branch. Their job is to, well, rule whether or not something is constitutional, ie, ruling in tune with the constitution. The US government is a broad term covering all branches of government. As an example, let's look at 'Obamacare'. The legislature (Congress) wrote the law, the executive (Obama) signed the law, and the Supreme Court (Judicial) ruled whether or not it was constitutional.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah Ken I'm really glad the Supreme Court has always ruled in tune with the Constitution. The U.S. Government would never infringe on our Constitutional rights.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually many rulings by the supreme court on the 2nd amendment explicitly give the government the right to regulate and restrict weapons. Try again.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How are you going to take their weapons away? They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment. These people are idiots and I don't want them having weapons. The only way to deter somebody's power is to have (more) power yourself.
Try again
There has been court cases where state laws on weapons ban have been overturned due to the second amendment. But if you're banning the cosmetics on a weapon (pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc) and not restricting a weapon type (pistols) then its A-ok. If you're banning a weapon type, people can and will fight it in court as in this casecoke wrote:
Seriously what are you talking about, every post you make seems to contradict itself at least once.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah Ken I'm really glad the Supreme Court has always ruled in tune with the Constitution. The U.S. Government would never infringe on our Constitutional rights.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually many rulings by the supreme court on the 2nd amendment explicitly give the government the right to regulate and restrict weapons. Try again.
Try again
You keep citing the 2nd ammendment, and saying that the government can't restrict weapon ownership, but they clearly fucking do, otherwise you for one i'm guessing would be spending every penny he had buying every single gun they could lay their hands on.
The case effectively overturned Washington D.C's handgun ban.District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
Yes, but fully automatic weapons aren't legal in a lot of states I believe so how is that not restricting them?Cybargs wrote:
There has been court cases where state laws on weapons ban have been overturned due to the second amendment. But if you're banning the cosmetics on a weapon (pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc) and not restricting a weapon type (pistols) then its A-ok. If you're banning a weapon type, people can and will fight it in court as in this casecoke wrote:
Seriously what are you talking about, every post you make seems to contradict itself at least once.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah Ken I'm really glad the Supreme Court has always ruled in tune with the Constitution. The U.S. Government would never infringe on our Constitutional rights.
Try again
You keep citing the 2nd ammendment, and saying that the government can't restrict weapon ownership, but they clearly fucking do, otherwise you for one i'm guessing would be spending every penny he had buying every single gun they could lay their hands on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o … _v._HellerThe case effectively overturned Washington D.C's handgun ban.District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
They're not banning a specific weapon type, but only fully automatic capabilities. You can get an MP5 in california, but its barrel length must be long enough and it cannot be a full auto weapon.coke wrote:
Yes, but fully automatic weapons aren't legal in a lot of states I believe so how is that not restricting them?Cybargs wrote:
There has been court cases where state laws on weapons ban have been overturned due to the second amendment. But if you're banning the cosmetics on a weapon (pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc) and not restricting a weapon type (pistols) then its A-ok. If you're banning a weapon type, people can and will fight it in court as in this casecoke wrote:
Seriously what are you talking about, every post you make seems to contradict itself at least once.
You keep citing the 2nd ammendment, and saying that the government can't restrict weapon ownership, but they clearly fucking do, otherwise you for one i'm guessing would be spending every penny he had buying every single gun they could lay their hands on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o … _v._HellerThe case effectively overturned Washington D.C's handgun ban.District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
-Sh1fty- wrote:
They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment.
He's right in a sense that they can't restrict weapons, but just certain capabilities.coke wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment.
no he's not. They can't restrict weapons? So you're allowed to own a nuclear device? Ballistic missile? RPG? I thought the resident US scholar would know this stuff.Cybargs wrote:
He's right in a sense that they can't restrict weapons, but just certain capabilities.coke wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
They have a legal right to own them and the U.S. government has no right to restrict weapons according to the 2nd Amendment.
If you really want to fuck shit up you don't need full auto anyway, just go get yourself a .50 cal sniper
They're classified as destructive devices and you can legally possess them, if you pass the background check.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no he's not. They can't restrict weapons? So you're allowed to own a nuclear device? Ballistic missile? RPG? I thought the resident US scholar would know this stuff.Cybargs wrote:
He's right in a sense that they can't restrict weapons, but just certain capabilities.coke wrote:
If you really want to fuck shit up you don't need full auto anyway, just go get yourself a .50 cal sniper
Nope, you're both idiots.
but on the whole nuke thing, your seriously stretching your argument jennings.While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them.
Last edited by Cybargs (2013-01-10 15:17:33)
Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-10 15:21:42)
AWB was pretty much a cosmetic ban. Didn't ban the sale of semi-automatics, only certain types (AR's, Ak's etc) that have the cosmetic "requirements" to define an assault weapon, hence making the law constitutional.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
except they can restrict firearm types. You're familiar with the federal assault weapons ban, right? The one that was passed and then expired?
I should have clarified - nuclear weapon. my bad.
Last edited by Cybargs (2013-01-10 15:49:13)
You think manufacturers didn't figure a way to get their weapons around the ban?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so you could own an AK-47 before the ban, but you couldn't own certain AK-47 during the ban. But this doesn't restrict certain firearm types?
What can wiki and/or your professor respond tell you about that?
impliedfacepalm.jpg-Sh1fty- wrote:
The wackos that would follow a person like Jones are the one who would commit massacres or do something stupid and illegal. That's why we need good people with weapons to stop them. Think of all the robberies, rapes, and murders of people who should "Call the cops!" and wait for help instead of pull a CCW and defend themselves. All those smug guys on TV in favor of gun control wouldn't be that way if some 6'4'' 230lb guy came to beat the shit out of them. I'd like to see them try and call the cops in a situation like that. "Excuse me sir, I'm called the cops. Would you mind waiting until they got here before attacking me? Thank you kindly." Works every time damnit