Assault rifles for self defense

[LeftCoastVoter]

It is not being incosistent, and I know you called me out on this in another thread.

The term "arms" and the peoples right to posses them is explicitly used in the consitution. Gay marriage (or marriage at all) abortion are not.

There is nothing unconstituional if you are a strict constructionist about banning or allowing same sex marriage or abortion. It is a task left to the legislature(s) unless an amendment prevents them from doing so.

right for people to be treated equally under the law is well defined within the constitution however.

It is not very well defined actually, since there is so much debate about it. The intent was to prevent the recent freedmen from being held to a different legal standard than whites.

Its become like the commerce clause now, with everything being lumped under it.

only if you wing nuts say so. the equal protection clause is as well defined as the 2nd amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

so wing nuts believe that the 2nd amendment affords a literal word for word interpretation, yet the 14th amendment is up for debate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

right for people to be treated equally under the law is well defined within the constitution however.

Which has nothing to do with federalizing marriage laws to create a new privilege for homosexuals, or for the courts dictating legislation that establishes abortion on demand.

 

[martybegan]

right for people to be treated equally under the law is well defined within the constitution however.

It is not very well defined actually, since there is so much debate about it. The intent was to prevent the recent freedmen from being held to a different legal standard than whites.

Its become like the commerce clause now, with everything being lumped under it.

only if you wing nuts say so. the equal protection clause is as well defined as the 2nd amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

so wing nuts believe that the 2nd amendment affords a literal word for word interpretation, yet the 14th amendment is up for debate.

The 2nd amendment specifically says the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The 14th amendment gives a broad statement that requires some clarificiation.

If you take equal protection to the extreme, you couldnt ban children from driving, You couldn't allow any marriage benefits with regards to taxes as that affects single people, and you couldnt progressivly tax higher levels of income.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

the 2nd amendment by definition refers to the right to "carry" arms not purchase arms. but the right takes the interpretation to the extreme and uses that to refer to the purchase of any and all arms.

so your argument fails simply because you do no give the 2nd amendment the same scrutiny you have given the 14th. arms could mean and only refer to the arms available at the time the constitution was written. the right to bear arms for over a century was interpreted to be applied only to the state militia, yet now the right has redefined the same amendment to address the rights of all citizens.

until 1939 the courts agreed that the 2nd amendment specifically addressed the needs of a well regulated militia, not was not universally applicable to citizens. but after the Miller verdict this all changed.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(this is a great example of the hypocrisy of the right, this can easily be considered judicial activism and evidence that constitution is a living document, not a rigid document, but since it benefits the right they dont cry foul)

your argument also fails because children are not afford the full rights under the law until the reach the age as defined by the law. yet when they reach this legally defined age they are afforded those rights and this applies universally not arbitrarily. you on the right want to apply laws only to a specific minority of the population, not the population as a whole. if you wanted to define marriage legally you would need to do so universally, not so that it alienates a specific segment. jim crow laws were once accepted, separate but equal has been shot down, not allowing women to vote was struck down. yet you on the right again and again want to legislate these rights away simply because you believe being LGBT is an abomination when at one time interracial marriage was viewed in the same light.

 

[martybegan]

the 2nd amendment by definition refers to the right to "carry" arms not purchase arms. but the right takes the interpretation to the extreme and uses that to refer to the purchase of any and all arms.

so your argument fails simply because you do no give the 2nd amendment the same scrutiny you have given the 14th. arms could mean and only refer to the arms available at the time the constitution was written. the right to bear arms for over a century was interpreted to be applied only to the state militia, yet now the right has redefined the same amendment to address the rights of all citizens.

until 1939 the courts agreed that the 2nd amendment specifically addressed the needs of a well regulated militia, not was not universally applicable to citizens. but after the Miller verdict this all changed.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(this is a great example of the hypocrisy of the right, this can easily be considered judicial activism and evidence that constitution is a living document, not a rigid document, but since it benefits the right they dont cry foul)

your argument also fails because children are not afford the full rights under the law until the reach the age as defined by the law. yet when they reach this legally defined age they are afforded those rights and this applies universally not arbitrarily. you on the right want to apply laws only to a specific minority of the population, not the population as a whole. if you wanted to define marriage legally you would need to do so universally, not so that it alienates a specific segment. jim crow laws were once accepted, separate but equal has been shot down, not allowing women to vote was struck down. yet you on the right again and again want to legislate these rights away simply because you believe being LGBT is an abomination when at one time interracial marriage was viewed in the same light.

So because you think guns are big scary bang things, you twist the 2nd amendment to mean whatever you think it means, but because you like gay marriage and abortion, whatever is needed to imply this in the consitution can be interpreted until it is blue in the face.

My positions are far more consistent that yours, and far more logically honest.

and with jim crow laws the amendment was written, and ignored by the southern states and the courts. Gay marriage is a much bigger step than interracial marriage, because biologically there is nothing different between the races, but there is a major difference between the sexes.

Gay people are free to marry opposite sex people all they want. Thats your equal protection. If you want to extend it to same sex couples fine, but do it via legislation (the consitution doesnt ban gay marriage) or amendment. Dont make crap up in the constitution and weasel out a "right" via the courts.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Doesn't every person have an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

the 2nd amendment by definition refers to the right to "carry" arms not purchase arms. but the right takes the interpretation to the extreme and uses that to refer to the purchase of any and all arms.

so your argument fails simply because you do no give the 2nd amendment the same scrutiny you have given the 14th. arms could mean and only refer to the arms available at the time the constitution was written. the right to bear arms for over a century was interpreted to be applied only to the state militia, yet now the right has redefined the same amendment to address the rights of all citizens.

until 1939 the courts agreed that the 2nd amendment specifically addressed the needs of a well regulated militia, not was not universally applicable to citizens. but after the Miller verdict this all changed.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(this is a great example of the hypocrisy of the right, this can easily be considered judicial activism and evidence that constitution is a living document, not a rigid document, but since it benefits the right they dont cry foul)

your argument also fails because children are not afford the full rights under the law until the reach the age as defined by the law. yet when they reach this legally defined age they are afforded those rights and this applies universally not arbitrarily. you on the right want to apply laws only to a specific minority of the population, not the population as a whole. if you wanted to define marriage legally you would need to do so universally, not so that it alienates a specific segment. jim crow laws were once accepted, separate but equal has been shot down, not allowing women to vote was struck down. yet you on the right again and again want to legislate these rights away simply because you believe being LGBT is an abomination when at one time interracial marriage was viewed in the same light.

So because you think guns are big scary bang things, you twist the 2nd amendment to mean whatever you think it means, but because you like gay marriage and abortion, whatever is needed to imply this in the consitution can be interpreted until it is blue in the face.

My positions are far more consistent that yours, and far more logically honest.

and with jim crow laws the amendment was written, and ignored by the southern states and the courts. Gay marriage is a much bigger step than interracial marriage, because biologically there is nothing different between the races, but there is a major difference between the sexes.

Gay people are free to marry opposite sex people all they want. Thats your equal protection. If you want to extend it to same sex couples fine, but do it via legislation (the consitution doesnt ban gay marriage) or amendment. Dont make crap up in the constitution and weasel out a "right" via the courts.

nowhere in any post did i state guns are big and scary.

you fail to apply the same scrutiny to the 2nd amendment that you apply to all other. your argument is a giant failure and a telling representation of your low level of intellect and reasoning ability.

why is gay marriage a bigger step than interracial marriage? you do realize that marriage is simply a legal contract between 2 individuals and regulated by the state? you are required to have gain a license to be married. if marriage isnt a legal contract then why is the state involved? why do you need to pay a fee and file documentation?

you fail again simply because you fail to understand that gay people are not free to marry the person of their choice. hence there is not equal protection. you agree with taking that right away and your either too ignorant or intolerant to see it.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Doesn't every person have an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex?

does that same person have the right to marry any person of their choosing regardless of sex?

 

[initforme]

As a hunter and one who owns guns for that purpose, why would I ever need an assault rifle. On the other hand, just like the drug war that hypocritical republicans are for fighting, there are so many assault rifles out there already can we really do anything about it? We have glorified guns, drugs, and violence. Now we say they are no good. We absolutely love and glorify war. That involves guns. How does a society that preaches violence, guns, drugs, and greed now change? Going to be a challenge.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The ultimate use of an assault weapon is to even the odds when the 2nd amendment is banished by executive decree or any other anti-american, communist bullshit.

A bolt action rifle is of little use against SWAT teams or other jackboots running toward your door in a reluctant attempt to take away your God given right to bear arms.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As a hunter and one who owns guns for that purpose, why would I ever need an assault rifle.

IF you were actually a hunter, and not a leftist activist making a dishonest claim, you would never use the false term "assault rifle.:

On the other hand, just like the drug war that hypocritical republicans are for fighting, there are so many assault rifles out there already can we really do anything about it? We have glorified guns, drugs, and violence. Now we say they are no good. We absolutely love and glorify war. That involves guns. How does a society that preaches violence, guns, drugs, and greed now change? Going to be a challenge.

You leftists have glorified "gangsta culture" and the most demented elements of society as the model for others to strive for. Being a scumbag is held up as the greatest achievement attainable, by you of the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The ultimate use of an assault weapon is to even the odds when the 2nd amendment is banished by executive decree or any other anti-american, communist bullshit.

A bolt action rifle is of little use against SWAT teams or other jackboots running toward your door in a reluctant attempt to take away your God given right to bear arms.

I don't know. A bolt action .30-06 may be the best weapon to slice through body armor clad thugs. Kevlar will stop a .223, but not the aught.

 

[martybegan]

the 2nd amendment by definition refers to the right to "carry" arms not purchase arms. but the right takes the interpretation to the extreme and uses that to refer to the purchase of any and all arms.

so your argument fails simply because you do no give the 2nd amendment the same scrutiny you have given the 14th. arms could mean and only refer to the arms available at the time the constitution was written. the right to bear arms for over a century was interpreted to be applied only to the state militia, yet now the right has redefined the same amendment to address the rights of all citizens.

until 1939 the courts agreed that the 2nd amendment specifically addressed the needs of a well regulated militia, not was not universally applicable to citizens. but after the Miller verdict this all changed.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(this is a great example of the hypocrisy of the right, this can easily be considered judicial activism and evidence that constitution is a living document, not a rigid document, but since it benefits the right they dont cry foul)

your argument also fails because children are not afford the full rights under the law until the reach the age as defined by the law. yet when they reach this legally defined age they are afforded those rights and this applies universally not arbitrarily. you on the right want to apply laws only to a specific minority of the population, not the population as a whole. if you wanted to define marriage legally you would need to do so universally, not so that it alienates a specific segment. jim crow laws were once accepted, separate but equal has been shot down, not allowing women to vote was struck down. yet you on the right again and again want to legislate these rights away simply because you believe being LGBT is an abomination when at one time interracial marriage was viewed in the same light.

So because you think guns are big scary bang things, you twist the 2nd amendment to mean whatever you think it means, but because you like gay marriage and abortion, whatever is needed to imply this in the consitution can be interpreted until it is blue in the face.

My positions are far more consistent that yours, and far more logically honest.

and with jim crow laws the amendment was written, and ignored by the southern states and the courts. Gay marriage is a much bigger step than interracial marriage, because biologically there is nothing different between the races, but there is a major difference between the sexes.

Gay people are free to marry opposite sex people all they want. Thats your equal protection. If you want to extend it to same sex couples fine, but do it via legislation (the consitution doesnt ban gay marriage) or amendment. Dont make crap up in the constitution and weasel out a "right" via the courts.

nowhere in any post did i state guns are big and scary.

you fail to apply the same scrutiny to the 2nd amendment that you apply to all other. your argument is a giant failure and a telling representation of your low level of intellect and reasoning ability.

why is gay marriage a bigger step than interracial marriage? you do realize that marriage is simply a legal contract between 2 individuals and regulated by the state? you are required to have gain a license to be married. if marriage isnt a legal contract then why is the state involved? why do you need to pay a fee and file documentation?

you fail again simply because you fail to understand that gay people are not free to marry the person of their choice. hence there is not equal protection. you agree with taking that right away and your either too ignorant or intolerant to see it.

Thats it, go with the "I have a different opinion than you, therefore I must be stupid" line that leftists keep using over and over and over.

If I have to teach you basic biology and its application to marriage then I dont know how to help you. And If gays want the same contract, they can simply come up with it themselves. What they want is the word "marriage" and the social acceptance that comes with it. If not why not settle for civil unions?

And how can I be intolerant if I have no issue with gay marriage being introduced by legislation? My issue is with butchering the consitution just because people really really want something.

As for the scrutiny part, lets me walk you through it. The 2nd amendment specifically references arms, people, keep, bear and "shall not be infringed." The only thing to figure out is what is an "arm" and by logic you can figure that out. To get gay marriage is a right you have to infer equal protection applying to a specifc contract that has always been under american jurisprudence between one man and one woman.

You can try to debate this civilly, or you can continue with your false assumption that you are smarter than me. If you want to go down the name calling route, I am all up for it you sodding sack of pig vomit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With regard to conservatives’ responses to this thread…

If/when there is another same-sex couples’ access to marriage or abortion thread, we should expect conservatives to defend due process and equal protection rights of those individuals as much as gun owners’ rights to the same.

We should not hear conservatives complaining about Federal courts interfering with ‘states’ rights,’ as McDonald disallows states and other jurisdictions to ban handguns.

It’s not enough for one to be correct, he must also be consistent.

It is not being incosistent, and I know you called me out on this in another thread.

The term "arms" and the peoples right to posses them is explicitly used in the consitution. Gay marriage (or marriage at all) abortion are not.

There is nothing unconstituional if you are a strict constructionist about banning or allowing same sex marriage or abortion. It is a task left to the legislature(s) unless an amendment prevents them from doing so.

right for people to be treated equally under the law is well defined within the constitution however.

Not according to the Supreme Court, which has long recognized the fact that laws are specifically designed to treat people differently based on arbitrary classifications, like income.

 

[9thIDdoc]

As a hunter and one who owns guns for that purpose, why would I ever need an assault rifle. On the other hand, just like the drug war that hypocritical republicans are for fighting, there are so many assault rifles out there already can we really do anything about it? We have glorified guns, drugs, and violence. Now we say they are no good. We absolutely love and glorify war. That involves guns. How does a society that preaches violence, guns, drugs, and greed now change? Going to be a challenge.

Tissue?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

It is not being incosistent, and I know you called me out on this in another thread.

The term "arms" and the peoples right to posses them is explicitly used in the consitution. Gay marriage (or marriage at all) abortion are not.

There is nothing unconstituional if you are a strict constructionist about banning or allowing same sex marriage or abortion. It is a task left to the legislature(s) unless an amendment prevents them from doing so.

right for people to be treated equally under the law is well defined within the constitution however.

Not according to the Supreme Court, which has long recognized the fact that laws are specifically designed to treat people differently based on arbitrary classifications, like income.

people are not defined by income shit for brains. they are defined by sex and race. you can change your income class, but you can not change your sex or race. they dont ask for you for you income when you fill out an work application or a census form. they ask for your sex and race.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

right for people to be treated equally under the law is well defined within the constitution however.

Not according to the Supreme Court, which has long recognized the fact that laws are specifically designed to treat people differently based on arbitrary classifications, like income.

people are not defined by income shit for brains. they are defined by sex and race. you can change your income class, but you can not change your sex or race. they dont ask for you for you income when you fill out an work application or a census form. they ask for your sex and race.

Are you saying tax laws do not treat people differently according to their income?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Not according to the Supreme Court, which has long recognized the fact that laws are specifically designed to treat people differently based on arbitrary classifications, like income.

people are not defined by income shit for brains. they are defined by sex and race. you can change your income class, but you can not change your sex or race. they dont ask for you for you income when you fill out an work application or a census form. they ask for your sex and race.

Are you saying tax laws do not treat people differently according to their income?

tax laws are arbitrary as you can change tax brackets. can you change your ethnicity?

does your tax bracket determine your right to vote, right to own property, right to privacy, right against self incrimination or right choose? do lower tax brackets change your rights? do higher tax brackets afford you more rights?

 

[KissMy]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o&feature=player_embedded#!"]Assault Weapons[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

people are not defined by income shit for brains. they are defined by sex and race. you can change your income class, but you can not change your sex or race. they dont ask for you for you income when you fill out an work application or a census form. they ask for your sex and race.

Are you saying tax laws do not treat people differently according to their income?

tax laws are arbitrary as you can change tax brackets. can you change your ethnicity?

does your tax bracket determine your right to vote, right to own property, right to privacy, right against self incrimination or right choose? do lower tax brackets change your rights? do higher tax brackets afford you more rights?

The only thing you care about is skin color. Guess what, laws treat you differently based on that as well, ever here of affirmative action and disparate impact laws?