It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Hopechest

You would lose that argument.

You can still bear arms...nothing is infringed upon. The Supreme Court has said, multiple times, that firearms can be regulated...nothing in the second amendment says they cannot. The only stipulation is that you cannot ban them all.


You are completely wrong, and so is the "Supreme Court"...

The second amendment CLEARLY says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... it doesn't say BAN, it says INFRINGED, and putting regulations, increasing fees which would restrict many Americans from buying firearms, not to mention that it makes it a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT by IMPOSING high fees, are INFRINGEMENTS upon this RIGHT...

You are making the same type of arguments that leftwingers make about Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, which states CLEARLY that the only type of government that shall be guaranteed to the states in this union is a REPUBLICAN form of government.

Now leftwingers in power, and others CLAIM that "nobody knows what the founding fathers meant by "REPUBLICAN form of government", when it should be clear...


BTW, most of those "Republicans" in power these days do not really represent what being a Republican means. They have been bribed and corrupted by the elites, so that the party of the people, the Republican party, would lose the backing of many Americans, and more so the poor and even many among the middle class.



edit on 22-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Technically you're wrong...

These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?
edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Hopechest

You would lose that argument.

You can still bear arms...nothing is infringed upon. The Supreme Court has said, multiple times, that firearms can be regulated...nothing in the second amendment says they cannot. The only stipulation is that you cannot ban them all.


You are completely wrong, and so is the "Supreme Court"...

The second amendment CLEARLY says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... it doesn't say BAN, it says INFRINGED, and putting regulations, increasing fees which would restrict many Americans from buying firearms, not to mention that it makes it a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT by IMPOSING high fees, are INFRINGEMENTS upon this RIGHT...

You are making the same type of arguments that leftwingers make about Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, which states CLEARLY that the only type of government that shall be guaranteed to the states in this union is a REPUBLICAN form of government.

Now leftwingers in power, and others CLAIM that "nobody knows what the founding fathers meant by "REPUBLICAN form of government", when it should be clear...


BTW, most of those "Republicans" in power these days do not really represent what being a Republican means. They have been bribed and corrupted by the elites, so that the party of the people, the Republican party, would lose the backing of many Americans, and more so the poor and even many among the middle class.



edit on 22-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Technically you're wrong...

These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?
edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


That is not correct. If you were regulated only to use a pen and paper and not a computer or a typewriter, would you consider that your right to freedom of speech was infringed upon or regulated?

The state does have the right to make its own laws on anything that is not a power granted to the federal government by the constitution or prohibited to the states:



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


However, rights that are enumerated by the bill of rights cannot be legislated against by the state either. A state cannot make a state religion or ban the freedom of the press or forbid African Americans the right to vote, for example.

The right to keep and bear arms has the same protection in the Bill of Rights as the freedom of speech or peaceable assembly or a jury trial. The state acnnot infringe upon these rights without being in violation of the Constitution.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Again, I'm not the one being regulated. Using your analogy... If a State passed laws which required PC makers to fit their products with some sort of hard coded ID chip, that would be regulating the PC, not the people using them. The PC makers might decide that they cannot comply and simply stop selling PCs in my state but, in no way have my freedom of speech rights been violated. Only the tools used to express my viewpoints have been limited.

I'm not saying I agree with it but I don't think it violates Constitutional law.

Also, I understand that no state shall pass laws that infringe upon right granted by the Bill of Rights. That wasn't my point.... the point was that Conservatives constantly harp about State sovereignty... unless it pisses them off.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
regulation vs. infringement.

I get what everyone wants in this thread and I too would like the microstamp and its' accompanying costs to be considered an infringement but the final say on the matter has spoken.
I expect some will just reject this also but it is the law of the land.


The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.


Librarty of Congress

Important to note in the statement above..

laws imposing conditions on commercial sales



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Again, I'm not the one being regulated. Using your analogy... If a State passed laws which required PC makers to fit their products with some sort of hard coded ID chip, that would be regulating the PC, not the people using them. The PC makers might decide that they cannot comply and simply stop selling PCs in my state but, in no way have my freedom of speech rights been violated. Only the tools used to express my viewpoints have been limited.

I'm not saying I agree with it but I don't think it violates Constitutional law.

Also, I understand that no state shall pass laws that infringe upon right granted by the Bill of Rights. That wasn't my point.... the point was that Conservatives constantly harp about State sovereignty... unless it pisses them off.


However. That is a bit of a misrepresentation. There are things that fall under the federal perview and things that belong to the states. One can make that distinction without being hypocritical.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Technically you're wrong...

These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?
edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


Yes they do...

BTW, you should read what the founding fathers had to say about the right to keep and bear arms. NOWHERE do they say the states, or the Feds have a right to regulate the right to own and bear arms...

Obviously you have no idea what infringe means.


infringe

1 actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright


2 act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties

oxforddictionaries.com...


...
Amendment II

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.
...

www.archives.gov...

The Second Amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be limited or undermined by anyone...


State rights doesn't give the power grabbers/control freaks the right to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land and state rights can't restrict, regulate nor ban the rights the U.S. Constitution states are natural/God given.


edit on 23-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Technically you're wrong...

These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?
edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


first off you sound like a young kid prefacing your comments with the word "Technically..."

second, you are wrong.

keep means hold, store, possess, have, own, purchase
bear means use, carry, move, transport, employ,

the core or primary issue is the article ARMS.

the secondary issue is all the necessary fringe articles needed for ARMS. that is weapons.
secondary issues and articles are ammunition, bullets, magazines, typpes of bullets, powder, types of firearms, primers, licenses, registrations, classes, approvals, fees and the like all INFRINGE on the right to keep and bear arms.

so the right is being eroded away, by the fringe secondary requirements being regulated.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
We live in an always changing world. The world doesn't stop for even a second to let you take a breath. If you stop, the world just leaves you behind in the dust. Places to go, things to do.

It's clear to see what's going on. The writing is on the wall. Our society is controlling more and more things, as it has in the past. It's our destiny. There's no going back without falling down.

Remember that kid. He's 12. He said "Bleh, girls are boring!" Fast forward 20 years and he's married with two little ones. He got a taste of them hormones. This is what's going on.

Like when Adam and Eve bit from the fruit. God forced em out and block the way with a shining sword. They fended for themselves. Now the only way back is salvation and death.

We got a taste of control. And ever since we've been chasing after it into eternity.
edit on 23-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Just a question or two: wouldn't a few swipes of 1500 grit sandpaper remove any micro stamps? Heck, even just the back pressure on the primer seems like it would burnish the stamping out of existance in a few thousand.rounds.
So, an expensive, mandated alteration to a weapon design that at best, will disapear on its own, or at worst takes five minutes to do away with.
What problem is this a solution to, anyway?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?


nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

reply to FortAnthem

they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.


no, ALL states are still subject to the supreme law of the land....and it states quite clearly guns are to be left alone...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Technically you're wrong...

These laws don't infringe upon the 'right' to keep and bear arms... only the arms themselves are being regulated.
...and it a Conservative tennant that each state has the right to make their own laws without Fed. Gov. interference?
edit on 23-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


first off you sound like a young kid prefacing your comments with the word "Technically..."


Ok... whatever you say, "Slugger"


second, you are wrong.


Nah... that's just your opinion and it doesn't mean jack sheet to me.


keep means hold, store, possess, have, own, purchase
bear means use, carry, move, transport, employ,


Please explain to me how any of those rights are being violated.


the core or primary issue is the article ARMS.


It would be much easier to understand what you're trying to say if you employed proper punctuation and grammer . Try again, Slugger.


the secondary issue is all the necessary fringe articles needed for ARMS. that is weapons.
secondary issues and articles are ammunition, bullets, magazines, typpes of bullets, powder, types of firearms, primers, licenses, registrations, classes, approvals, fees and the like all INFRINGE on the right to keep and bear arms.


Good lord man, longest run on sentence ever.


so the right is being eroded away, by the fringe secondary requirements being regulated.


If I understand you correctly, You're saying that it's unconstitutional to place any regulations and/or restrictions on gun makers.

The fact of the matter is that the gun industry is highly regulated at the Federal level already, but not by the CPA.

Currently it is illegal to sell to the public; sawed off shotguns, armor piercing rounds, & 'machine guns'. Each gun manufactured must be marked with an indelible serial number.

The Federal Aviation Administration regulates the transport of firearms and ammunition.


In total, an estimated 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws are on the books. Some of these laws cover individual buyers; some govern what can be made and sold. Others regulate how and under what terms and conditions firearms and ammunition can be distributed throughout the country. Firearms and ammunition, while exempt from the CPSA, are subject to the same product-liability laws as other products. As such, the firearms and ammunition industry is dedicated to the manufacturing of quality, safe products for use by responsible, law-abiding citizens.


Source

None of these regs prevent me from owning, possesing, and or carrying a weapon legally.
edit on 24-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

If I understand you correctly, You're saying that it's unconstitutional to place any regulations and/or restrictions on gun makers.

The fact of the matter is that the gun industry is highly regulated at the Federal level already, but not by the CPA.

Currently it is illegal to sell to the public; sawed off shotguns, armor piercing rounds, & 'machine guns'. Each gun manufactured must be marked with an indelible serial number.



And it is against the Constitution and the Amendments.

"Shall not infringe" is very easy to understand.

I asked my 6 year old this. Her reply was, "No rules on it dad".

So, a 6 year old gets it, yet you don't.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

If I understand you correctly, You're saying that it's unconstitutional to place any regulations and/or restrictions on gun makers.

The fact of the matter is that the gun industry is highly regulated at the Federal level already, but not by the CPA.

Currently it is illegal to sell to the public; sawed off shotguns, armor piercing rounds, & 'machine guns'. Each gun manufactured must be marked with an indelible serial number.



And it is against the Constitution and the Amendments.

"Shall not infringe" is very easy to understand.

I asked my 6 year old this. Her reply was, "No rules on it dad".

So, a 6 year old gets it, yet you don't.



I'm sure your 6 year old is very bright...

...but please explain to her the difference between ownership and manufacturing. The 'rules' we are talking about apply to manufacturing, not ownership. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand?

Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell hand grenades to the genral public. Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell land mines to the general public. Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell weapons grade Plutonium to the general public.

...do you think she should be able to walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon? The Bill of Rights makes no mention of age restriction but I'm betting that you wouldn't want her or her friends buying a gun.

Your 'logic' fails under scrutiny... which is understandable considering it came from a child.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner


I'm sure your 6 year old is very bright...

...but please explain to her the difference between ownership and manufacturing. The 'rules' we are talking about apply to manufacturing, not ownership. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand?

This is very simple. Shall not infringe. There is no statement as to "You shall not infringe, except in these cases......."





Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell hand grenades to the genral public. Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell land mines to the general public. Ask her if she thinks it would be ok to sell weapons grade Plutonium to the general public.

Really??? The old Progressive talking points of hand grenades and rocket launchers. Now I know who I am dealing with.





Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...do you think she should be able to walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon? The Bill of Rights makes no mention of age restriction but I'm betting that you wouldn't want her or her friends buying a gun.

How it is written, yes. Not very difficult.

If yo and other Progressives want it to be legal, within the Constitution, why not do it the right way, instead of using progressive judges to legislate from the bench?
Oh, I know why. Because as a whole, you and other progressives know that trying to do it the correct way, would be like hitting a brick wall, and you don't want that.





Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Your 'logic' fails under scrutiny... which is understandable considering it came from a child.


Yeah, only the fact that even a child can understand these things. Yet, Progressives make it difficult and confusing to understand.
As for an example, I bring you the brainchild of the Progressives. The US Income Tax code.


Nuff said.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DC434L2A
Just a question or two: wouldn't a few swipes of 1500 grit sandpaper remove any micro stamps? Heck, even just the back pressure on the primer seems like it would burnish the stamping out of existance in a few thousand.rounds.
So, an expensive, mandated alteration to a weapon design that at best, will disapear on its own, or at worst takes five minutes to do away with.
What problem is this a solution to, anyway?


Yep.
Or you could change out the firing pin and/or the barrel. They are rather inexpensive replacement parts. You could use a revolver chambered in an automatic round, collet spent brass from a shooting range, drop them at the scene and get away Scott free.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Oooh... we're gettin nasty now eh?


Originally posted by macman

This is very simple. Shall not infringe. There is no statement as to "You shall not infringe, except in these cases......."


The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed upon.

The legislation we're discussing does not infringe upon those rights.... only the manufacture. See the difference? No? Go ask your daughter... maybe she can explain it to you


Really??? The old Progressive talking points of hand grenades and rocket launchers. Now I know who I am dealing with.


Yes reeeeeaaallly.... it's logic man. It's employed by progressives as well as others.

And no... you don't know who you're dealing with... you only think you do


Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...do you think she should be able to walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon? The Bill of Rights makes no mention of age restriction but I'm betting that you wouldn't want her or her friends buying a gun.


How it is written, yes. Not very difficult.


I call BS. I don't believe you're being sincere. You don't think sales should be restricted? Tell you what... when all restrictions on sales of guns are removed, I'll be on the street corner across from your daughter's school selling .38s cheep... I'll even throw in free ammo. I bet you'd like that eh?


f yo and other Progressives want it to be legal, within the Constitution, why not do it the right way, instead of using progressive judges to legislate from the bench?


Fair enough...


now why. Because as a whole, you and other progressives know that trying to do it the correct way, would be like hitting a brick wall, and you don't want that.


There you go again... thinking you know. Dude.... it's their state. They can do what they want within the limits of the constitution... my point is that they are within the limits. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Only the fact that even a child can understand these things. Yet, Progressives make it difficult and confusing to understand.


Well then you should get her to explain the difference between regulating and restricting manufacture and sales as opposed to an individuals right to keep and bear.



As for an example, I bring you the brainchild of the Progressives. The US Income Tax code.


Good lawd... History much?

The current tax code was signed into law by Ronald Reagn back in 1986. I can't blame you for not knowing that though... since you daughter is only 6 she wouldn't remember.




Nuff said.


Agreed... I think you should give it a rest.... maybe go take a nap or something.

...but I'm not done.

“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”
--Ronald Reagan, (progressive swine!) in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.

He said lots more but I think you get the idea....

Say g'night kiddos...





posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It creates the environment now for the firing pin and barrel to be controlled items.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Oooh... we're gettin nasty now eh?


Originally posted by macman

This is very simple. Shall not infringe. There is no statement as to "You shall not infringe, except in these cases......."


The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed upon.

The legislation we're discussing does not infringe upon those rights.... only the manufacture. See the difference? No? Go ask your daughter... maybe she can explain it to you


Really??? The old Progressive talking points of hand grenades and rocket launchers. Now I know who I am dealing with.


Yes reeeeeaaallly.... it's logic man. It's employed by progressives as well as others.

And no... you don't know who you're dealing with... you only think you do


Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...do you think she should be able to walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon? The Bill of Rights makes no mention of age restriction but I'm betting that you wouldn't want her or her friends buying a gun.


How it is written, yes. Not very difficult.


I call BS. I don't believe you're being sincere. You don't think sales should be restricted? Tell you what... when all restrictions on sales of guns are removed, I'll be on the street corner across from your daughter's school selling .38s cheep... I'll even throw in free ammo. I bet you'd like that eh?


f yo and other Progressives want it to be legal, within the Constitution, why not do it the right way, instead of using progressive judges to legislate from the bench?


Fair enough...


now why. Because as a whole, you and other progressives know that trying to do it the correct way, would be like hitting a brick wall, and you don't want that.


There you go again... thinking you know. Dude.... it's their state. They can do what they want within the limits of the constitution... my point is that they are within the limits. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Only the fact that even a child can understand these things. Yet, Progressives make it difficult and confusing to understand.


Well then you should get her to explain the difference between regulating and restricting manufacture and sales as opposed to an individuals right to keep and bear.



As for an example, I bring you the brainchild of the Progressives. The US Income Tax code.


Good lawd... History much?

The current tax code was signed into law by Ronald Reagn back in 1986. I can't blame you for not knowing that though... since you daughter is only 6 she wouldn't remember.




Nuff said.


Agreed... I think you should give it a rest.... maybe go take a nap or something.

...but I'm not done.

“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”
--Ronald Reagan, (progressive swine!) in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.

He said lots more but I think you get the idea....

Say g'night kiddos...




Rather funny that a progressive supports Reagan when it supports his agenda but lambastes him when it does not. Iran/contra, 1986 gun bills, Beirut bombing...Reagan was not a bastion of freedom either and screw him for his bad calls. Unlike leftists, Constitutionalists do not blindly worship figures. All though Reagan got it right on some economic issues, he got it wrong on many other issues. Afterall, he was a former Califiornia Democrat--he still had some of the commie stink on him.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Another one who thinks she knows....

....I'm not 'progressive' or 'lberal' or 'conservative'

I'm a God damned human being... using his head.

Polly want a cracker?

I didn't bring up Reagan in the first place... Mac did... unknowingly. FTW...

edit on 24-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join