DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom

You don't know me. I have conservative friends who consider me a liberal, and progressive friends who consider me conservative. These labels are so very limiting. Feel free to so easily judge me, but it shows your poor reasoning skills.

Very quaint anecdote.


Originally posted by nomnom
I will now challenge YOU to show me one time that the president has advocated the banning of all guns since he took the office.

And where have I stated I have proof that he wants to ban all guns?
I provided you his statement, where he is quoted in his belief that US citizens shouldn't have firearms.
Your retort is that was x amount of years ago.
You then supplied a quote where he states he wants to ban assault weapons, that violent crime is committed mostly with handguns, believes in the 2nd but wants to limit the certain type of guns he and his followers deem as not suitable for every day Americans.



Originally posted by nomnom
If you can't back up your nonsense, then shut it.


Oh, the angry Progressive lashes out.

Can't you just accept the fact that the Tyrant 0bama is a liar, not just every so often, but within a single statement.

Your very cute with your proof of that. Got anymore you care to submit??




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns



That is the title of this thread. You are posting off topic.

Yes, he wants to ban assault weapons. Yes, the majority of violence comes from hand guns.

YES, an assault weapon can wreck more havoc than a handgun. YES, we have incidences which prove this.

NO, there is not a single good reason to have an assault weapon on the streets.

Not dealing with your nonsense anymore. You lack critical thought, and are weak of heart.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom


DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns



That is the title of this thread. You are posting off topic.

Yeah, ah ha.




Originally posted by nomnom

Yes, he wants to ban assault weapons.

So he lied, he is not for the 2nd Amendment.
Good to know.


Originally posted by nomnom
Yes, the majority of violence comes from hand guns.

So banning Assault weapons is the answer?? Mind boggling.


Originally posted by nomnom
YES, an assault weapon can wreck more havoc than a handgun.

How so?



Originally posted by nomnom
YES, we have incidences which prove this.

Being what?
I have yet to see where 2 mass shootings were done, one with just handguns one with the evil assault weapon to compare the two.


Originally posted by nomnom

NO, there is not a single good reason to have an assault weapon on the streets.

Ah.. the 2nd Amendment is reason enough. Guess you don't like the Constitution or Bill of Rights.


Originally posted by nomnom
Not dealing with your nonsense anymore. You lack critical thought, and are weak of heart.

Oh, boo-hoo. So sad.
SO you and the Tyrant 0bama share the same sentiment. You aren't for the 2nd Amendment.


Nice to know.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
lube up, get ready for the fema camps. theyre not for illegal aliens, since we not give those idiots driver lisences. instead when they go to get their lisence, they should be held and deported



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 


So, please show me were it states "Shall not infringe, except these listed arms".

I will wait for it....................................................



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by nomnom
 


So, please show me were it states "Shall not infringe, except these listed arms".

I will wait for it....................................................


It's not needed. This is what it states:


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.


Well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms.

This is exactly what is taking place. It's being well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms is a fact in the United States.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by nomnom
 


So, please show me were it states "Shall not infringe, except these listed arms".

I will wait for it....................................................


It's not needed. This is what it states:


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.


Well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms.

This is exactly what is taking place. It's being well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms is a fact in the United States.


Well regulated means to make regular not to impose restrictions that "infringe" on the right. Otherwise the entire amendment contradicts itself. Also regulated refers to the Militia not the individual right to keep and bear arms which is why there is a comma separating them. You can't have a regular militia without individual rights to bearing arms.

This is what happens when evil designing men redefine terms to suit their agenda. Also they use the commerce clause as their excuse to infringe on gun ownership not the 2nd amendment and they use the same term "to regulate commerce" redefined to mean restriction or infringement to do it. They get away with it because of the ignorance and apathy of the populace on the matter as usual.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I believe this video here points out that there is almost zero difference in what weapon gets used



I posted this and others in my own thread here.....

Dispelling the Myth of Gun Control



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom



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.


Well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms.

This is exactly what is taking place. It's being well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms is a fact in the United States.


You really have no clue.
Well regulated does not mean the Govt can regulate the arms. It means that the Militia will be trained and armed. This has been gone over time and time again. It is a shame you weren't involved with those past discussions.

Please, go do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth again.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 


Actually if you read the Federalist papers and other writings from the time, the meaning of "well regulated" is defined for you. Regulated in this sense that the militia (comprised of all men of fighting age) needs to have weapons that are all of "regulation" bore size, to ease supply chain problems. This was clearly defined back in the late 1700s, when weapons were of all different bore sizes and thus, equipping a mass of soldiers turned out to be a total nightmare because they were hardly compatible with each other.

It's only since the 1930s that anybody seriously argued that this word means red tape in this context. This coincides with the general takeover of the USA, 20 or so years after the formation of the evil Federal Reserve system.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 





NO, there is not a single good reason to have an assault weapon on the streets.


So insurance against government tyranny is not a good reason in your mind I guess... Sigh! Wow I bet you drive without insurance on your car and don't have any insurance on your house if you own one because a fire or accident could not ever happen right?...



edit on 28-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by nomnom
 


So, please show me were it states "Shall not infringe, except these listed arms".

I will wait for it....................................................


It's not needed. This is what it states:


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.


Well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms.

This is exactly what is taking place. It's being well regulated. The right to keep and bear arms is a fact in the United States.


I agree with conservatives on this issue. The second amendment makes it clear that the federal government should not infringe on the peoples right to bear arms and form militias. The duty seems to be passed to state and local government, if at all. Well regulated in the context of *by the government* would infringe the rights provided in the second amendment, therefore it becomes a non-sequitur aka a contradiction.

And all the recent school shootings are quite suspicious, over-sensationalised and misreported. Seems like someone has or had an evil agenda in mind.
edit on 28/2/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The second amendment makes it clear that the federal government should not infringe on the peoples right to bear arms and form militias. The duty seems to be passed to state and local government, if at all. Well regulated in the context of *by the government* would infringe the rights provided in the second amendment, therefore it becomes a non-sequitur aka a contradiction.


The SCOTUS disagrees

In this decision they noted that the section of the 2nd about militia is not actually a law - it is an introduction and pronounces the purpose - but it does not limit the operative part which is hte right to bear arm. It therefore actually has little or no actual effect.

Also the SC has consistently allowed regulation of gun ownership. there is no question that regulation is legal - as long as you retain the right to bear arms under those regulations - ie the regulatiosn cannot prohibit you from bearing arms, nor make the sort of arms that are legal and suitable for use by a militia illegal - so t Washington DC was not entitled to ban all handguns, and was not entitled to require triggler locks that would make guns unuseable for the purpose of self defence in ones home.

but banning concealed carry is perfectly legal, as is restricting the features that weapons are allowed to have.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The second amendment makes it clear that the federal government should not infringe on the peoples right to bear arms and form militias. The duty seems to be passed to state and local government, if at all. Well regulated in the context of *by the government* would infringe the rights provided in the second amendment, therefore it becomes a non-sequitur aka a contradiction.


The SCOTUS disagrees

In this decision they noted that the section of the 2nd about militia is not actually a law - it is an introduction and pronounces the purpose - but it does not limit the operative part which is hte right to bear arm. It therefore actually has little or no actual effect.

Also the SC has consistently allowed regulation of gun ownership. there is no question that regulation is legal - as long as you retain the right to bear arms under those regulations - ie the regulatiosn cannot prohibit you from bearing arms, nor make the sort of arms that are legal and suitable for use by a militia illegal - so t Washington DC was not entitled to ban all handguns, and was not entitled to require triggler locks that would make guns unuseable for the purpose of self defence in ones home.

but banning concealed carry is perfectly legal, as is restricting the features that weapons are allowed to have.


While DC v Heller correctly affirmed an individual right to keep an bear arms it failed in many other respects to uphold the constitution and violated previous SC rulings and contradicted itself that a right cannot be converted to a privilege and have a license and fee issued and if it is converted to such can be ignored with impunity. So they affirmed an individual right and then allow it to be converted to a privilege and and issue a license and fee for it. The fact that the court upheld the licensing requirements clearly contradicts it is a right and the constitutional plain language of "shall not be infringed."

Infringement is infringement it means what it says. If infringement is allowed the exceptions would have been specifically added to the 2nd amendment.

No State can convert a right to a privilege and issue a license and fee for it...

Murdock v. Penn. 319 US 1051943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

If a State does convert a right to a privilege you can ignore it with impunity

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 2621962)
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can
ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So you are saying even the states don't have the right to regulate firearms? Regardless of the legallese I think some restrictions are necessary for everyone's safety. The slippery slope analogy does not cut it for me. All nations have some form of gun control.

And I am not talking of feinstein's warped sense of humor. Her version was freakish!



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So you are saying even the states don't have the right to regulate firearms? Regardless of the legallese I think some restrictions are necessary for everyone's safety. The slippery slope analogy does not cut it for me. All nations have some form of gun control.

And I am not talking of feinstein's warped sense of humor. Her version was freakish!


You do not have to buy anything its the law! The states are bound by the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a right protected by the Constitution and upheld by the SC and cannot be converted to a privilege and issued a license and fee for exercising it period! The question is settled long ago in American jurisprudence as the case cites I posted prove. All the excuses justifications and current infringements not withstanding.

U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This establishes the constitution as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and the judges in every state are bound by it to uphold it THIS IS WHY THEY TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION along with every state legislator and officers right down to the local level!




edit on 28-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So you are saying even the states don't have the right to regulate firearms? Regardless of the legallese I think some restrictions are necessary for everyone's safety. The slippery slope analogy does not cut it for me. All nations have some form of gun control.

And I am not talking of feinstein's warped sense of humor. Her version was freakish!

Well, since the constitution states the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed upon, then the state can't violate that right. So, no, the states has no legal authority.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Ufos are real too but no one believes them.

What is good on paper does not necessarily make it ethically moral or valid.

Conservatives usually argue "slippery slope" this "slippery slope" that which is a cop-out.

Everything about america is becoming absurd. Glad I moved out of that #hole!





top topics
 
42
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join