0121stockpicker
Silver Member
I don't think they are debating abolishing the second correct? We all know / even the NRA agrees - that limitations, rules etc are completely constitutional but need to be done in an intelligent manner.
Gun bill clears Senate hurdle as filibuster falls short
- Thread starter XLTer
- Start date
- Status
I don't think they are debating abolishing the second correct? We all know / even the NRA agrees - that limitations, rules etc are completely constitutional but need to be done in an intelligent manner.
Not sure why it is so hard for some to comprehend....
"The right of then people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED."
NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!! It is the most important words in the 2nd.
The debate is about infringement of the 2nd amendment rights...... You font debate or vote on rights, that is why they are called rights....
What if they were debating limiting free speech, would you be so willing to surrender that right so easily...? I would be fighting just as hard for it as for the 2nd....
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
There are debates on what falls under the right of free speech all the time.
Again anyone you knows anything about the constitution knows that the right to free speech is limited by the law even though there are no limits in the constitution.
Just as we all know that the "right to bear arms" has had completely constitutional limitations, rules and regulations on it for decades and decades and decades. You know this, even the NRA says this, so why do you keep repeating your inaccuracies?? We all know that it is perfectly constitutional to put rules around gun ownership.
Again what part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? What part of infringement is hard to understand.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
National Firearms Act of 1935
Brought about by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like machine guns from America's streets. Other firearms such as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as well as other "gadget-type" firearms hidden in canes and such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. approval.
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
Federal Firearms Act of 1938
Congress aimed this law at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. Anyone involved in the selling of firearms was required to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce ($1 annual fee). They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit.
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
Gun Control Act of 1968
The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assasinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage. License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers could not sell to grew to include those convicted of felonies (with some exceptions), those found mentally incompetent, drug users and more. The act also defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms.
The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21 years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns, including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles sales.
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986
Made it illegal for anyone to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
Eased restrictions on gun sellers and the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary convictions who are illegally shipping guns.
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
Crime Control Act of 1990
Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts.
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Imposed, on an interim basis, a five-day waiting period and background check before a licensed gun importer, manufacturer or dealer can sell or deliver a handgun to an unlicensed individual.
Required a new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI, be ready to replace the waiting period by Nov. 30, 1998. The new background check system will apply to all firearms and will allow checks to be done over the phone or electronically with results returned immediately in most cases.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.
Criteria for semiautomatic assault weapons that fall under the ban are provided as well as a list of 19 specific firearms.
Prohibits juveniles from possessing or selling handguns and directs the attorney general to evaluate proposed and existing state juvenile gun laws.
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
I understand the constitutional definition of what the Supreme Court and our legislators consider infringing and what they don't consider infringing. You obviously do not.
So answer this.
Your in court a judge tells you "Mr Stockerpicker, by order of the court you are not to infringe on Mr Jones property." Now tell me what part of his property can you pick his flowers on, throw your trash on , put your fence on or intrude on in one way or another with out breaking the court order.... ? Answer that......
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Your in court a judge tells you "Mr Stockerpicker, by order of the court you are not to infringe on Mr Jones property." Now tell me what part of his property can you pick his flowers on, throw your trash on , put your fence on or intrude on in one way or another with out breaking the court order.... ? Answer that......
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
Tell me how all these laws exist??
onfire
Silver Member
With all of us so busy on the 2nd. We are not getting involved in the 3rd Amendment . If the 2nd is changed to the way some of these goofs are chipping away at it.What makes you think they won't do the same with the 3rd?
In fact wasn't the 2nd thought of in defense of (Dano's people)?
I doubt anyone of us would allow the Government to enter our home, them knowing you have nothing to defend yourself.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT IT WAS DECIDED THAT MAYBE FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD BE FIRST!!!
In fact wasn't the 2nd thought of in defense of (Dano's people)?
I doubt anyone of us would allow the Government to enter our home, them knowing you have nothing to defend yourself.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT IT WAS DECIDED THAT MAYBE FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD BE FIRST!!!
So you want answer the question, didn't think you would. You have different versions of the meaning "not be infringed", one for our freedoms and rights and a totally different one for everything else.....
I have one version......
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
This is what you don't understand is that it DOES NOT matter what my definition, your definition or John does definition of any word or phrase is. It matters what the courts definition is. They decide what is constitutional and what is not. Don't you understand how the constitutional process works. Do you not realize the history of gun control laws? Again it just seems like all you have is to fall back on the standard rhetoric.
Is everyone of this laws posted above unconstitutional??
Aleisters
Jr. Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 23
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Central Ohio
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Just a quick couple of questions TH, what arms should a private citizen NOT be allowed to own? And where do you draw the line on "ARMS"? In your terminology, what do you consider arms?
Last edited:
0121stockpicker
Silver Member
Shall not be infringed - so that means machine guns, flame throwers, cluster bombs, nukes, etc, etc. come on man, don't you know what the infringe means!!
Still want answer...LOL
How long did it take for US government to admit rounding up All Japanese citizens and put them in camps was wrong and unconstitutional?
How many ways did Lincoln violate the constitution.
Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War
We have all been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator who freed the slaves during the Civil War, but according to the Independent Review, “contrary to popular belief, the war was not fought primarily over slavery.” This statement counters everything we have been taught since grammar school. It appears that in reality most Northerners did not object to slavery; quite to the contrary, they graciously accomplished trade and most business matters with the south, without protest. Supposedly, the war was fought because of the different economic policies of the northern and southern states, wherein some of these policies were related, but other matters had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.
*
Therefore, the war with the south, which is more correctly identified as the “war between the states,” was a convenient vehicle to ensure the southern tax base was retained to fund the treasury to feed expansion. Lincoln may have made many decisions for what he considered the greater good of the country, but on the surface it appears that sinister forces were at work. Scholars have debated the issue of why the war was fought for over a hundred years, without an absolute conclusion. As far as this book, this is not the issue I wish to explore. The issue is how the Constitution has been suborned, misinterpreted, ignored or simply bypassed by the politicians, and in some cases by the judicial system itself, so I will leave the great debate to the scholars.
*
Let me be very clear about this. I am not attempting to demonize some of the most important figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, in American history, as many revisionists have reviled both Jefferson and Washington and other revolutionary visionaries because they owned slaves. We know little of the mindset of many of these people over one hundred to two hundred years ago. As incomprehensible as their thinking may have been in today’s society, in many quarters slaves were considered sub-human, to be used for menial labor in much the same manner as we use robots today. Therefore, the Founding Fathers did not see any contradiction between slavery and the “All men are created equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence.
*
Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”*
*
Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
By the standard definition in any randomly chosen dictionary, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,
“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
“Power to levy War?” “Contract Alliances?* These words sound very much like the authority any nation would grant itself.
*
Remember that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very specifically designed the new government on the basis of a union of strong and independent states with a minimal Federal government solely responsible for defense and the judiciary, to avoid the pitfalls of powerful central governments such as England. In fact, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Common defence and general Welfare meant that their intention was simply to maintain a Federal army and the development of a nationwide judicial system. That was the main purpose of the Federal government – and not the mutation we have today. According to various legal interpretations, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than it had in binding China or France to the Union. The key here is that somehow Lincoln and his supporters chose to believe that the states had magically surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the tenth amendment to the Constitution that 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.”
Legal experts, ad nauseum, can debate this argument but one seemingly indisputable fact stands out like a Times Square billboard. By almost all legal interpretations, the Constitution is fundamentally a treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states, which those states agreed to support, as opposed to being bound to obey by law. This is a very important point that illustrates the rape of the Constitution commencing with the administration of Lincoln. There are thousands of legal interpretations that are both pro and con on this issue, so consult your library (or the Internet) if you wish to pursue this matter in greater depth.
*
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (a writ to release a party from unlawful restraint) and people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty. At least 13,000 civilians were held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but was overruled by Lincoln. Does this not ring a bell? The Patriot Act was not the first instance of suspension of the people’s rights under the Constitution.
*
Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion of our paychecks that we live with today.
*
One of the key provisions of the Constitution is that it is a “living” document. Our Founding Fathers recognized that they could not foresee the needs of the people 100 or 200 years in the future, so they developed the system of amendments to permit continual update of the document. However, a very important point must be emphasized in that two-thirds of the states must ratify any change. Obviously since the south represented about one-half of the states in the Union, Lincoln would not have been able to modify any provision of the Constitution dealing with states rights – he would not have obtained approval on this issue.
*
Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,
“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”*
Pretty harsh words I would have to say. He also wrote:
“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”
Many historians would agree with the following statement,
“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”
There is no question the Lincoln freed the slaves, a terrible blot on the country, but “does the means justify the end?”
*
As un-American and contrary as this may sound, an argument can be made that if this democracy falls within the next 50 years because of excessive Federal government control and taxation, Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves by fighting the war may have been too high a price to pay for his usurpation of the Constitution.
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm
Just because something is allowed to happen doesn't make it constitutional..........
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
How long did it take for US government to admit rounding up All Japanese citizens and put them in camps was wrong and unconstitutional?
How many ways did Lincoln violate the constitution.
Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War
We have all been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator who freed the slaves during the Civil War, but according to the Independent Review, “contrary to popular belief, the war was not fought primarily over slavery.” This statement counters everything we have been taught since grammar school. It appears that in reality most Northerners did not object to slavery; quite to the contrary, they graciously accomplished trade and most business matters with the south, without protest. Supposedly, the war was fought because of the different economic policies of the northern and southern states, wherein some of these policies were related, but other matters had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.
*
Therefore, the war with the south, which is more correctly identified as the “war between the states,” was a convenient vehicle to ensure the southern tax base was retained to fund the treasury to feed expansion. Lincoln may have made many decisions for what he considered the greater good of the country, but on the surface it appears that sinister forces were at work. Scholars have debated the issue of why the war was fought for over a hundred years, without an absolute conclusion. As far as this book, this is not the issue I wish to explore. The issue is how the Constitution has been suborned, misinterpreted, ignored or simply bypassed by the politicians, and in some cases by the judicial system itself, so I will leave the great debate to the scholars.
*
Let me be very clear about this. I am not attempting to demonize some of the most important figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, in American history, as many revisionists have reviled both Jefferson and Washington and other revolutionary visionaries because they owned slaves. We know little of the mindset of many of these people over one hundred to two hundred years ago. As incomprehensible as their thinking may have been in today’s society, in many quarters slaves were considered sub-human, to be used for menial labor in much the same manner as we use robots today. Therefore, the Founding Fathers did not see any contradiction between slavery and the “All men are created equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence.
*
Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”*
*
Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
By the standard definition in any randomly chosen dictionary, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,
“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
“Power to levy War?” “Contract Alliances?* These words sound very much like the authority any nation would grant itself.
*
Remember that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very specifically designed the new government on the basis of a union of strong and independent states with a minimal Federal government solely responsible for defense and the judiciary, to avoid the pitfalls of powerful central governments such as England. In fact, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Common defence and general Welfare meant that their intention was simply to maintain a Federal army and the development of a nationwide judicial system. That was the main purpose of the Federal government – and not the mutation we have today. According to various legal interpretations, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than it had in binding China or France to the Union. The key here is that somehow Lincoln and his supporters chose to believe that the states had magically surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the tenth amendment to the Constitution that 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.”
Legal experts, ad nauseum, can debate this argument but one seemingly indisputable fact stands out like a Times Square billboard. By almost all legal interpretations, the Constitution is fundamentally a treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states, which those states agreed to support, as opposed to being bound to obey by law. This is a very important point that illustrates the rape of the Constitution commencing with the administration of Lincoln. There are thousands of legal interpretations that are both pro and con on this issue, so consult your library (or the Internet) if you wish to pursue this matter in greater depth.
*
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (a writ to release a party from unlawful restraint) and people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty. At least 13,000 civilians were held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but was overruled by Lincoln. Does this not ring a bell? The Patriot Act was not the first instance of suspension of the people’s rights under the Constitution.
*
Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion of our paychecks that we live with today.
*
One of the key provisions of the Constitution is that it is a “living” document. Our Founding Fathers recognized that they could not foresee the needs of the people 100 or 200 years in the future, so they developed the system of amendments to permit continual update of the document. However, a very important point must be emphasized in that two-thirds of the states must ratify any change. Obviously since the south represented about one-half of the states in the Union, Lincoln would not have been able to modify any provision of the Constitution dealing with states rights – he would not have obtained approval on this issue.
*
Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,
“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”*
Pretty harsh words I would have to say. He also wrote:
“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”
Many historians would agree with the following statement,
“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”
There is no question the Lincoln freed the slaves, a terrible blot on the country, but “does the means justify the end?”
*
As un-American and contrary as this may sound, an argument can be made that if this democracy falls within the next 50 years because of excessive Federal government control and taxation, Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves by fighting the war may have been too high a price to pay for his usurpation of the Constitution.
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm
Just because something is allowed to happen doesn't make it constitutional..........
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Other than machine guns nothing else is a firearm. You need to look up fire arms.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
- Status
Top Member Reactions
-
2852 -
2198 -
1245 -
1173 -
951 -
911 -
888 -
771 -
656 -
618 -
598 -
567 -
565 -
560 -
550
