I figured that out in a different thread after JFA's 2nd post
... another Officeer OBEY
Last edited:
Judge upholds CT gun laws
- Thread starter Chris0nllyn
- Start date
I figured that out in a different thread after JFA's 2nd post
... another Officeer OBEY
justiceforall
New Member
Why do you keep exagerating? Could you tell me in any place in the United States wehre firearms are banned for everyone? That statement is simply not true.
To answer your question, the purpose of banning certain firearms is to please the constituents. In states which pass those laws, the citizens want those laws passed. If not, then the next election will yield candidates who will change those laws.
My point is just about every single person who comes on here and moans about this being a second amendment violation wants some sort of gun control. They don't want guns to be in the hands of the insane, they don't want criminals to have guns. So that in itself is a violation of the literal language in the second amendment.
It's not about the second amendment for people like you, it's about them passing laws you don't like.
justiceforall
New Member
What are you talking about? I obey gun laws. There are laws on the books and I follow them. If you don't like the laws, vote in candidates who will support your views. PUT your money where your mouths is! That's what I do. My organization pays lobbiest who get the laws I like passed.
justiceforall
New Member
Because the people in the states where those laws are being passed want those laws. So you too, aren't worried about gun control, just the gun control which effects you.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Automatic weapons are banned nationwide. In MD no one – NO ONE – can buy semi-automatic ‘assault' rifles. Do you need more exaggerations?
justiceforall
New Member
Are firearms banned to everyone? That is after all what you said.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we have a constitutional that was designed to protect us from the very thing our government is doing?
If banning these weapons (for instance in MD) was to ‘please the constituents’, then why did gun sales (particularly on the weapon proposed to be banned) skyrocketed through the roof? And even if it did ‘please the constituents’ (which it obviously doesn’t), that’s not how constitutional law works… If you want to manipulate the constitution, there is a process called the amendment process. If the constituents want to be pleased, do it the right way. You don’t please the constituents by violating the constitution.
It’s not a matter of whether I want guns to be in some hands and not others. It’s a matter of whether we are going to recognize we have a constitution that forbids our government from doing what they’re doing. You use these extreme examples as a means to get what you want, in order for it to be imposed on EVERYONE. I will ask you again… how does banning assault rifles prevent assault rifles from getting into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill?
You see, this is where you don’t even see what you’re saying… I don’t like these laws BECAUSE they violate the constitution. The two go hand-in-hand. I don’t like any laws that violate our constitution on any level. What is the point of having a constitution if we’re just going to ignore it? Does it have any meaning to you at all? Does “shall not be infringed” have any meaning to you at all? If we’re going to just toss it aside as a bunch of archaic words that only had meaning 200+ years ago and aren’t relevant today, then let’s do away with the entire thing: free speech, religion, press, privacy, etc… Let’s toss it and just have our government tell us what our rights are; because that’s where we’re at, and that’s what you’re advocating.
justiceforall
New Member
You have already said that is ok for government to pass laws restricting the rights of certain people. You don't want people who have been convicted of violent crimes and released from prison to have guns. You don't want people who have been found mentally ill to have guns. So for you, it isn't about the constitution, it's about passing laws YOU don't like.
Show me in the constitution where it said people who have been convicted of crimes can lose their rights. Show me int he constitution where it said because you have a mental illness you lose your rights.
justiceforall
New Member
It does please constituents. Not all, but the majority. If not, then the majority will elect people to overturn those laws.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You're conflating reasonable restrictions and absolute restrictions.
We know you can't give away military secrets - a reasonable restriction on the first amendment. You would say it violates the first amendment to pass a law that restricts speech by criminalizing advocating for socially liberal causes, but you're okay with the law that criminalizes treasonous speech. One is reasonable, one is unconstitutional.
justiceforall
New Member
You don't have to obey.....but then you can suffer the consequence.
justiceforall
New Member
Ok but who decides what is reasonable and unreasonable? Someone has to do it. Should it be the voters? The judges? The lawmakers?
This_person
Well-Known Member
We the people.
another unthinking troll to feed Jews into the ovens ...
justiceforall
New Member
That's a nice answer. How do we the people do that? Elections? Civil war? How do we the people determine as a body what is reasonable?
justiceforall
New Member
haha that's funny. You are a funny man.
PsyOps
Pixelated
You’re not getting it. There is a clause in the 2nd amendment: “shall not be infringed”. What does that mean to you? Laws have been passed that affect EVERYONE to answer for the extreme few. This is an infringement on the rights of those (the vast majority of people) who are law-abiding people; that even they (US, you and me) can't be trusted with these weapons.
Sure, I was able to get my firearms before Oct 1, 2013 before they were banned. But now I can no longer buy anymore. If my AR becomes inoperable or destroyed for some reason, I will no longer be able to buy one. I have 15 round magazines for my 9mm that I got pre-Oct 1. If those break on me I can no longer get 15 round clips.
Are you going to argue that as long as I can buy a bolt action .22 my rights are still intact? Is that your argument? Because I’ll tell you, that is NOT the intent of the 2nd, to have government limit access to firearms, but as long as we have access to some our 2A rights are still intact. But if that is your point, then tell us… how many guns should we ban until you feel comfortable that those bans have actually greened the results you’re looking for?
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
No, but this is an good exercise in exposing the people that actually believe our government are far smarter than we are, and that we need them to determine what it requires to make us safe, and that we need their permission on how to live our daily lives, AND that none of us can't be trusted with 'dangerous things'. The only way we can be trusted is if the government determines we are trustworthy.
justiceforall
New Member
YOU are not getting it. You already gave your approval of rights being infringed. There is no place in the constitution where it says criminals lose their rights, but you already ok'd that. There is no place in the constitution which said mentally ill people lose their rights but you already ok'd that.
Now your bitch is that you don't like the rights YOU percieve to have being infringed.
If you are going to support the literal interpretation of the constitution, don't do it only when it is convienent to you.