You shouldn't have WEAPONS OF WAR because gun owners could never oppose the US mil.
Good vid on the subject...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x_YhKC2WjY
Printable View
You shouldn't have WEAPONS OF WAR because gun owners could never oppose the US mil.
Good vid on the subject...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x_YhKC2WjY
44 states have constitutional provisions enumerating the individual right to keep and bear arms. And most of them, the language used is even more clear-cut than the 2nd amendment that the lefties try to parse to death.
Colorado in 1876:
Pennsylvania's dates back to 1776, and is pretty clear cut:Quote:
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Even liberal Connecticut, in 1818:Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Only 6 states fail to enumerate a right to keep and bear arms: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.Quote:
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Iowa and New Jersey have a more general
Quote:
all persons have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
I love that avatar!Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverGP
[LOL]
If I am left a bolt gun or revolver have my rights been upheld? These words aren't a problem for the mag ban, right? We've yet to see a challenge on this basis.
Worse example, here is NY state law...
Quote:
"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."
http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-ri...vr-sect-4.html
Sounds familiar and pretty damned gun friendly. Made purposefully consistent with 2A, should enjoy all the same protections.
Now look at NYC.
2 + 2 = 5
I'm not sure there is much meaning in the law. I think NY would ratify a repeal of 2A in spite of their state laws. I think CO would too, to be honest. They would sell it as "we aren't going to ban all guns, just need the ability to impose reasonable restrictions and 2A is in the way."
Which is basically what John Paul Stevens argues (as mentioned on the last page) in...
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/o...tion%2Fopinion
Quote:
[snip]
Overturning that decision [Heller] via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
[snip]
See how he did that? They aren't banning all guns just want constructive gun control legislation. But to get there, they need to grant themselves the ability to ban all guns.
And doesn't this mean that 2A does indeed protect the guns that are now banned in many states? If 2A is an obstacle, why isn't it an obstacle?
I haven't read much of this thread, but I'm surprised that no one is digging up as much as they can about the Nevada thing and pointing to that as a direct example of people actually utilizing their 2nd Amendment in current times. I'm no history buff, but I can't think of another time anyone has really done so, and a list would be very useful.
Are you referring to the Bundy Ranch "standoff"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I posted this on TAH but I figured it was appropriate here as well:
Stevens might just as well argue that the liberals should build a time machine to send a robot assassin back to 1951 to kill Eugene Stoner before he could design the AR platform.
I mean, he might as well propose that since it’s about as likely to happen as the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Yes. Didn't someone here recently post something saying all charges were dropped and entire case dismissed or something? I thought people jumped in with notions of everything being shut down to prevent exposing whatever government officials that wanted the land for commercial development. I can't tell if that was legitimate or just the usual BS that gets posted here.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Regardless, just like the NRA magazine runs self defense stories, it would be important, IMO, to research potential 2A events. Otherwise, it seems very easy to craft an argument that regardless of the nature of a restriction, if it didn't prevent anyone from defending themselves from the government, that it hasn't had an effect on 2A at all.
Not saying I agree with that reasoning, but I can see something like that coming at some point.
I just don't know if us lazy well feed Americans have what it takes to run an insurgent war. The youth have already been conditioned to stair endlessly into their phone for hours on end and unlike Afghanistan we don't have the family bonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Charges were dropped due to OOPS from the fbi. They fuked up and cost them a guilty conviction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta..._case_thr.html
A judge Monday threw out criminal charges against Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a co-defendant in their 2014 standoff with federal agents, citing "flagrant misconduct" by prosecutors and the FBI in not disclosing evidence before and during trial.
I think you're right about laziness, in general. I don't think most really know what this is all about and I'm not sure how to explain it. I think if people understood it there would be more unity on the issue and willingness.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorDG