Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.
As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew
Like that.In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional
Well, now that you put it that way...
You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!
In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."
There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?
True enough. I was right then, and I'm right now.You're just as wrong as you were before.
TRANSLATION: little hazelnut didn't dare quote what the 2nd amendment actually says, so he changed the subject and talked about what judges said instead.Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take
TRANSLATION: I didn't dare talk about what the 2nd amendment actually says either, so I changed the subject as quickly as little hazlnut did, and talked abut what Congress said instead.In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress
A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I know, I know
If the founders had wanted to make gun rights absolute they could have written it as such
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD
They did not
True enough. I was right then, and I'm right now.You're just as wrong as you were before.
TRANSLATION: little hazelnut didn't dare quote what the 2nd amendment actually says, so he changed the subject and talked about what judges said instead.Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take
TRANSLATION: I didn't dare talk about what the 2nd amendment actually says either, so I changed the subject as quickly as little hazlnut did, and talked abut what Congress said instead.In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress
So far no one has been able to point out where the 2nd amendment allows for ANY exceptions to its ban on govt restricting guns. All they can do is point to what people who DIDNT write the 2nd, say... people who likewise couldn't show where the 2nd allowed any exceptions, and so had to make them up out of thin air. And hope to fool people into believing the Framers didn't mean what they wrote and ratified.
The only people who have ANY authority to make exceptions to what the 2nd says, are juries.
But liberals hate that, since they know juries will excuse cops (sometimes) and not excuse criminals (usually) - the exact opposite of what the liberal fanatics want.
Worse, the liberal fanatics know that they (and their cohorts in the press) can't influence the jury. It's the worst of all worlds for the liberal fanatics, who depend on the law not being upheld.
A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
True enough. I was right then, and I'm right now.You're just as wrong as you were before.
TRANSLATION: little hazelnut didn't dare quote what the 2nd amendment actually says, so he changed the subject and talked about what judges said instead.Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take
TRANSLATION: I didn't dare talk about what the 2nd amendment actually says either, so I changed the subject as quickly as little hazlnut did, and talked abut what Congress said instead.In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress
So far no one has been able to point out where the 2nd amendment allows for ANY exceptions to its ban on govt restricting guns. All they can do is point to what people who DIDNT write the 2nd, say... people who likewise couldn't show where the 2nd allowed any exceptions, and so had to make them up out of thin air. And hope to fool people into believing the Framers didn't mean what they wrote and ratified.
The only people who have ANY authority to make exceptions to what the 2nd says, are juries.
But liberals hate that, since they know juries will excuse cops (sometimes) and not excuse criminals (usually) - the exact opposite of what the liberal fanatics want.
Worse, the liberal fanatics know that they (and their cohorts in the press) can't influence the jury. It's the worst of all worlds for the liberal fanatics, who depend on the law not being upheld.
So according to you, Congress had no business passing those gun control statutes and SCOTUS had no business in ruling on those cases like Heller, et al.
I had wondered why there had been no conditions placed on arms myself and looked to historically relevant justification.
Seems it may have something to do with the 1st Amendment. It seems that not all that long before the founders drafted the BILL OF Rights, the right of Catholics to keep and bear arms had been severely restricted. This was probably in the back of their minds as they debated the 2nd Amendment.
And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.
As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew
Like that.In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional
Well, now that you put it that way...
You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!
In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."
There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
This is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, regardless the OP's subjective, errant opinion.
Uh, no. The Nazis actually relaxed gun control laws. They were much more restrictive before Hitler came into power.indeed that is how gun control works
the nazis outlawed guns for the jew gypsy and anyone else not in the party
in fact one of the first gun laws in the states banned blacks from owning firearms
gun control is not about controlling guns or crime
it is about controlling people
why did you have to beg?And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.
As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew
Like that.In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional
Well, now that you put it that way...
You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!
In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."
There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
This is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, regardless the OP's subjective, errant opinion.
The fact that I have to beg the NYPD for a concealed carry permit, and pay over $500 for one is not a reasonable restriction.
why did you have to beg?And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.
Like that.In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional
Well, now that you put it that way...
You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!
In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."
There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
This is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, regardless the OP's subjective, errant opinion.
The fact that I have to beg the NYPD for a concealed carry permit, and pay over $500 for one is not a reasonable restriction.
Uh, no. The Nazis actually relaxed gun control laws. They were much more restrictive before Hitler came into power.indeed that is how gun control works
the nazis outlawed guns for the jew gypsy and anyone else not in the party
in fact one of the first gun laws in the states banned blacks from owning firearms
gun control is not about controlling guns or crime
it is about controlling people
Can you link to that?why did you have to beg?And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.
Like that.
Well, now that you put it that way...
You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!
In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."
There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
This is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, regardless the OP's subjective, errant opinion.
The fact that I have to beg the NYPD for a concealed carry permit, and pay over $500 for one is not a reasonable restriction.
because they only issue one if you have "a reason", or you know someone.
Can you link to that?why did you have to beg?And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.Well, now that you put it that way...
You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!
In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."
There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
This is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, regardless the OP's subjective, errant opinion.
The fact that I have to beg the NYPD for a concealed carry permit, and pay over $500 for one is not a reasonable restriction.
because they only issue one if you have "a reason", or you know someone.
According to the application that is only if you are getting the permit so you can use your gun as part of your employment.Can you link to that?why did you have to beg?And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
This is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, regardless the OP's subjective, errant opinion.
The fact that I have to beg the NYPD for a concealed carry permit, and pay over $500 for one is not a reasonable restriction.
because they only issue one if you have "a reason", or you know someone.
Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns
And each act perfectly Constitutional and in compliance with the Second Amendment.TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.
As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew
Like that.In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional
Well, now that you put it that way...
You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!
In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."
There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
This is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, regardless the OP's subjective, errant opinion.
The fact that I have to beg the NYPD for a concealed carry permit, and pay over $500 for one is not a reasonable restriction.
According to the application that is only if you are getting the permit so you can use your gun as part of your employment.Can you link to that?why did you have to beg?The fact that I have to beg the NYPD for a concealed carry permit, and pay over $500 for one is not a reasonable restriction.
because they only issue one if you have "a reason", or you know someone.
Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns
According to the application that is only if you are getting the permit so you can use your gun as part of your employment.Can you link to that?why did you have to beg?
because they only issue one if you have "a reason", or you know someone.
Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns
That is actually a reason that lets you bypass the 'only if we say so" part of the permit, and then you can only carry when on the job.
My question is, doesn't this seem like "infringement" to you?
