Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Kentucky bans cities from banning firearms

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I have been watching and worrying about all of this gun ban nonsense. I have seen where other States have enacted legislation to protect their citizens from the feds coming in to try and enforce registration or confiscation.

As I am not a lawyer, would someone please break this down for me?
What exactly does this mean? Is it a good or bad thing for us pro-gun people?

Thanks in advance...




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Again that law does not fall under the Constitution.It falls under the federal Goverments assumed responsibility.These are two very different applications of the Supremacy Clause.Now to further your arguement I suggest you find where the Federal Goverment Implemented a law not in compliance with a Constitutional Right.


Again is manufacturing and selling arms a constitutional right?

Just like medial cannabis law, states say it's legal to sell and use by people with a dr's prescription. But by federal law it is still illegal to manufacture because it is not complaint with the food and drug administration.

The feds could do the same thing with guns, making them illegal to manufacture by anyone, that does not contradict the constitution does it?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Ok if it is unconstitutional it can not apply.The states can take it to federal court and challenge it.It is not the law of the land.


Does the constitution give people the right to manufacture and sell weapons?


Read the constitution... Does it prohibit them? Okay.. now look at the 10th



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Again that law does not fall under the Constitution.It falls under the federal Goverments assumed responsibility.These are two very different applications of the Supremacy Clause.Now to further your arguement I suggest you find where the Federal Goverment Implemented a law not in compliance with a Constitutional Right.


Again is manufacturing and selling arms a constitutional right?

Just like medial cannabis law, states say it's legal to sell and use by people with a dr's prescription. But by federal law it is still illegal to manufacture because it is not complaint with the food and drug administration.

The feds could do the same thing with guns, making them illegal to manufacture by anyone, that does not contradict the constitution does it?


Last I checked the constitution did not have an amendment stating:

"The right to get high shall not be infringed"



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Explaining the 2nd amendment to foreign pseudo constitutional lawyers gets so tiring. Your other comments aside the "feds" as you put it have 0 constitutional right to ban gun sales.

You people have to stop confusing empirical theory/opinion with fact because this is not a matter of perspective.


What facts? So far what I have been shown as fact is in fact not what they thought it was.

I am not foreign, I am a US citizen born abroad. I understand how to read English.

Where in the constitution does it say people have a right to manufacture and sell arms? Where does it say the Feds can not ban that?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Read the constitution... Does it prohibit them? Okay.. now look at the 10th


It doesn't have to prohibit them. If it doesn't give you the right to manufacture and sell then there is nothing stopping the feds from banning it.

Obviously I have read it, otherwise I wouldn't be asking this question.

"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."

Nothing about the right to manufacture and sell arms. We don't even live in a free state, we live under a corporate dictatorship. Your chance of fulfilling the fantasy of standing up to a tyrannical system has already passed.

edit on 1/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Again that law does not fall under the Constitution.It falls under the federal Goverments assumed responsibility.These are two very different applications of the Supremacy Clause.Now to further your arguement I suggest you find where the Federal Goverment Implemented a law not in compliance with a Constitutional Right.


Again is manufacturing and selling arms a constitutional right?

Just like medial cannabis law, states say it's legal to sell and use by people with a dr's prescription. But by federal law it is still illegal to manufacture because it is not complaint with the food and drug administration.

The feds could do the same thing with guns, making them illegal to manufacture by anyone, that does not contradict the constitution does it?


Getting you to address one issue is like trying to nail jello to a wall.


You seem to be the Constitutional Lawyer show me where cannabis is covered in the Constitution??

edit on 19-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Explaining the 2nd amendment to foreign pseudo constitutional lawyers gets so tiring. Your other comments aside the "feds" as you put it have 0 constitutional right to ban gun sales.

You people have to stop confusing empirical theory/opinion with fact because this is not a matter of perspective.


What facts? So far what I have been shown as fact is in fact not what they thought it was.

I am not foreign, I am a US citizen born abroad. I understand how to read English.

Where in the constitution does it say people have a right to manufacture and sell arms? Where does it say the Feds can not ban that?


How would you become a US citizen with such a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. Don't they give you a test?

Let me fill in the gap left by our demonstrably inept immigration process..

The constitution is a charter of enumerated rights and negative powers to the federal government. If it isn't specified as something the federal government CAN do then it is left up to the states to decide.

Your issue is that you're thinking of the purpose of the document 180 degrees opposite if it's original intent.

It's obvious to me that you swore to uphold and defend something that you had no clue about or as to its purpose.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Read the constitution... Does it prohibit them? Okay.. now look at the 10th


It doesn't have to prohibit them. If it doesn't give you the right to manufacture and sell then there is nothing stopping the feds from banning it.

Obviously I have read it, otherwise I wouldn't be asking this question.

"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."

Nothing about the right to manufacture and sell arms. We don't even live in a free state, we live under a corporate dictatorship. Your chance of fulfilling the fantasy of standing up to a tyrannical system has already passed.

edit on 1/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


So if arms cannot be bought or sold or manufactured.In say 300 years that change would not affect anyones right to bear arms?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Read the constitution... Does it prohibit them? Okay.. now look at the 10th


It doesn't have to prohibit them. If it doesn't give you the right to manufacture and sell then there is nothing stopping the feds from banning it.

Obviously I have read it, otherwise I wouldn't be asking this question.

"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."

Nothing about the right to manufacture and sell arms. We don't even live in a free state, we live under a corporate dictatorship. Your chance of fulfilling the fantasy of standing up to a tyrannical system has already passed.

edit on 1/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


See my earlier post. It doesn't have to say it. I could start my own gun company tomorrow.





edit on 19-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 





How would you become a US citizen with such a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. Don't they give you a test?


Good One.

Oh God, I can't stop laughing



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


it would violate the shall not infringe part and just like the cops cant stop drugs illegals or moonshine being made in this country they couldn't stop home made gun owners hiding their weapons

and the feds get to screw with drugs because drugs werent really a problem for people back in the day so the founding fathers are pretty silent on the matter of limiting them but very pro drug and handed them out like candy if the founding fathers had known that the dea some day may come into existence they may have explicitly mentioned not infringing upon drug use/ownership/manufacturing

Jefferson grew pot/hemp,Washington made moonshine(damn good scotch too) and a variety of our founding fathers would probably be considered drug dealers today with how they all used to make their money
edit on 19-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


But what if some Sheriff decides that his/her States rights supercede Federal law?

Ya know, using the 10th amendment.

Also, building a firearm in your garage is not that hard. Plenty of parts floating around out there. And the there are plenty of companies that could moon-light using CAD. I guarentee you that would happen as well.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


cannibas(hemp) is not covered in the constitution its WRITTEN on it
perhaps they thought that was a strong enough statement
edit on 19-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


In a place like KY, that, plus deputize every willing armed citizen, there will be a army waiting for the feds



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
A new state law in Kentucky bans cities from banning firearms.The state want's to make it clear that any law passed by the state Legislature will be the law in the Great state of Kentucky (God bless the commonweath).This is to prevent cities from inacting ordinances.That violate State law.Well folks being from KY. I can only see one reason for this and the anti-gun city folks ain't going to be happy.

Read the link.Post your thoughts.But remember this.After the link is a video of what our State legislature allows twice a year. Yee-Haa

www.wdrb.com... s-from-enacting-gun-laws


edit on 19-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)


Only in America!!!!!

And THAT'S why other countries don't DARE invade!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

If the right to manufacture guns is banned then only criminals will manufacture guns!!
...Man
edit on 19-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
So if arms cannot be bought or sold or manufactured.In say 300 years that change would not affect anyones right to bear arms?


The right to bear arms is not the right to manufacture and sell arms. If it was they wouldn't be able to put restrictions on any arms. Just like the right to use medical cannabis, by state law, is not a right to manufacture beyond personal use. That is why the feds can raid cannabis clubs.

Yes it is a contradiction, but that is the how the law works. Seems like you just want to intemperate the constitution to suit yourself.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution: This is the free trade and commerce section, but it does state that congress has the final say over who can sell what to whom. This is where the drawback is.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


bear arms means carry them and if we cant make them how can we carry them.?

its part of the shall not infringe part people have been polite to you and tried to answer your questions but all it is is a bunch of troll crap from some one just trying to show up in a pro gun thread and troll the pro gun people either that or you were dropped as a child or shaken by a British nanny otherwise i cant fathom how you can be so dense or how retarded are you and seriously with all this talk of pot maybe it explains it by the fact that with all the stupid bull crap you keep spouting u must be brain damaged or higher then cheech or chong if you cant wrap your little head around the simple phrase shall not be infringed?

and if you actually wanna learn something instead of promoting ignorance try reading the federalist papers they do a pretty good job of explaining the issues and have been around for a long long time
edit on 19-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join