All gun laws violate the 2nd Amendment

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

I wasn't actually refering to you, when I said "you," but rather washington and the rest of the people that like to argue that they know the law better than the justices do.

Justices are human... and they also have agendas.... making their opinion no more valid than anyone elses.... however, the written word and the meanings of words cannot be changed for the sake of convenience.

All instances of judges upholding unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional in and of themselves and therefore invalid.

But give ONE such an instance to bolster your claim.... how about two or three! The problem with your claims is that they do NOT agree with our supreme law of the land... the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Mine do!

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Mine do!

Says... who, other than you?

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

What I'm saying is that you're ignoring all the court decisions that UPHOLD the restrictions. The founding fathers, that everyone adores so much, gave us the court system to determine what laws do and do not say. For the most part, they disagree with you. Are you wrong or are they wrong? If they're wrong, what do you base that off of? Are you a lawyer? You'll scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in the antis' favor and the anti's will scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in our favor. In reality, your both "interpreting" (and I use that term loosely,because neither of you are qualified or learned enough to interpret anything)the laws based on your own opinions and biases.

You're armchair ref'ing the Super Bowl and the only football experience you have is playing Madden '08.

Spoken like a true Statist and anti-Liberty and anti-Freedom Socialist. I've said it before and I'll say it again... those who say these matters are complex and therefore have no definite answer only say this so they can bypass the truth in favor of their own power and control. They say things like "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is." If the term Liberty and the phrase "shall not infringe"are bothinconvenient,you and theyignore it or say it's more complex that it really is. You and those like you are enemies of Liberty and enemies of Freedom and you will be on the wrong side of the next Civil War.... and you will be the cause of it.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Mine do!

Says... who, other than you?

I don't think anyone except the other Statists on these boards agree with you. Not only that, but the supreme court majority opinions from which the clauses I extracted come from also prove that more people than just me believe these truths.

What is more... from the 1980s to now, we've been beating people like you back at every turn and wrenching our freedom out of your claws one defeated unconstitutional statute, ordinance and law at a time. Just look at the maps of States in the 80s that would not allow anyone to carry and look at them now... a huge difference and huge strides to my side of the argument.

The 10th Amendment movements within the States also have more people within them who also agree with me and I would say that there are more and more people speaking out who have great authority on the subject who also agree with me.

You have yet to cite one case that has not been overturned that agrees with you. Oh, and if you think using the Heller vs DC case majority opinion as your proof... think again. The wording used by the justices outlining regulationis already being challenged as infringement on the RTKBA. Cite me the countless rulings that agree with you that still have any validity at all.

 

[thx997303]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Mine do!

Says... who, other than you?

I don't think anyone except the other Statists on these boards agree with you.

Hey now guy, although rarely, I do agree with stylez on some things.

This comment offends me.

Generalizations are bad mmmkay?

 

[MuellerBadener]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

What I'm saying is that you're ignoring all the court decisions that UPHOLD the restrictions. The founding fathers, that everyone adores so much, gave us the court system to determine what laws do and do not say. For the most part, they disagree with you. Are you wrong or are they wrong? If they're wrong, what do you base that off of? Are you a lawyer? You'll scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in the antis' favor and the anti's will scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in our favor. In reality, your both "interpreting" (and I use that term loosely,because neither of you are qualified or learned enough to interpret anything)the laws based on your own opinions and biases.

You're armchair ref'ing the Super Bowl and the only football experience you have is playing Madden '08.

By that criteria we'd still be under "Dred-Scott"! Just because generations of lawyers and jurists said so in their opinions doesn't make it right either. What Washington is saying is that they are in fact wrong. (Yes, in his opinion) The constitution is a frank and to the point document that government, lawyers, and government lawyers have been twisting and perverting to their own ends and their own agrandizment of power for years.

Implying that Washington is an idiot because he believes in his own opinion, is your opinion. His opinion is free. Yours sounds less so, and I don't mean the cost of things.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

Hey now guy, although rarely, I do agree with stylez on some things.

This comment offends me.

Generalizations are bad mmmkay?

What generalization? If I had said, "Nobody on these boards agrees with you!" That would have been a generalization... however, I said that "I don't think anyone but..." and then completed the phrase with an assumption of who would also agree with him on this subject. It's my opinionon who agrees with him, not a generalization. However, he implicitly made a generalization that nobody except for me agreed with me. I offered opinion, he implied something was fact.

Back to the Subject for me...

The Constitution and the Second Amendment are written for the layman. They were written in common English of the time, and not in the complex legalese that even existed back then. The problem with the lawyers and judges and Statists and Progressives is that they believe that by convincing people that its really complex, that they can then re-interpret it to mean something that it does not say. For example, the commerce clause (a clause, not an Amendment) has more sway for some reason that the Amendments 1-14 as it seems to allow the Federal government to make laws that violate those Amendments in one way or another. The other one is the "general welfare" clause which gives them the supposed right to use our taxes for benevolence. This bastardization of the Constitution for the purpose of bypassing it's constraints and stealing our Liberty and Freedom is what has got to stop. This is the purpose behind my continuously arguing on the side of Liberty and Freedom and against those who would take them from us.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Mine do!

Says... who, other than you?

I don't think anyone except the other Statists on these boards agree with you.

I just asked you to prove your own opinion, not to refute mine.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

MuellerBadener wrote:

The constitution is a frank and to the point document that government, lawyers, and government lawyers have been twisting and perverting to their own ends and their own agrandizment of power for years.

But that's just it -EVERYONE else is perverting it and twisting it, but somehow he's 100% unbaised and he's got it right? Based on what?

That's exactly my point. The constitution is just like the Bible. Everyone says it's so clear-cut, so plainly written, so easy to understand... but then they all come to different conclusions on it!

I'm asking him to tell me why he thinks he's more right than anyone else. I'm not even giving my opinionon the constitution. I'm challenging his and yet I'm all of a sudden anti-freedom. Strawman, anyone? :quirky

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

I just asked you to prove your own opinion, not to refute mine.

You have to prove your own opinion. What have you offered here? I have referenced rulings by the supreme court, definitions of words and the founding documents... you've said they're wrong with nothing to back up your assertion... proving once again... you're a troll.

You have more than 1700 posts here in less than a year... and yet you say nothing... get a life.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

I just asked you to prove your own opinion, not to refute mine.

You have to prove your own opinion. What have you offered here? I have referenced rulings by the supreme court, definitions of words and the founding documents...

You posted vague, non-specific, out of context quotes from rulings, definintions of words that prove and/or reinforce nothing, and YOUR idea of what the founding documents mean, based on... the fact that you just know that's what they mean.

So I'll ask you again:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Mine do!

Says... who, other than you?

Prove to me why YOUR interpretation of the constitution is any more right than anyone else's, let alone the SOCTUS'.


I've made no interpretation. I have nothing to prove.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:


I've made no interpretation. I have nothing to prove.

AWDstylez ...

I've made no interpretation . :shock:

I have nothing to prove . :what:

________________________________________________________

Everytime you start explaining you start losing .

" Cause if you splaien you losen . " James Carville

Wonder what makes Carville such a anti-Constitutionalist .

Are people born social Democrats? Can left wing waco anti-gun views be taught ? I will bet theenvironmentand poor mental abilities are to blame . My goodness , could it be evil that was left over from the Big Bang that makes some of us hate our historical [ God given] right of self defense . Why do the idiots want to violate my Second Amenment ?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

AWDstylez, I don't personally see how restricting the sale or purchase of a firearm could in any way be seen as reasonable.

At the same time, I could see your argument being accepted, by antis.

But either way, not only is the purchase of many firearms regulated, or illegal, so is the manufacturing without a permit from the government.

Also, the import requires a license. All of this is IMHO blatant infringement. And I hold the position that regulating the sale of the firearms is merely a springboard for more regulation . And if you can't buy it, how in the world are you going to get it?

Anywho, I have a friend who owns a tank from WWII. An American one, I believe a Sherman. Perfectly legal, I am not sure if he has ever fired the cannon, but one could easily fire it with a little knowledge.

It is disgusting to me that we can't have full auto weapons but we can have tanks. But I love that we can have tanks.

What I'm saying is that you're ignoring all the court decisions that UPHOLD the restrictions. The founding fathers, that everyone adores so much, gave us the court system to determine what laws do and do not say. For the most part, they disagree with you. Are you wrong or are they wrong? If they're wrong, what do you base that off of? Are you a lawyer? You'll scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in the antis' favor and the anti's will scream and cry that they're wrong when they rule in our favor. In reality, your both "interpreting" (and I use that term loosely,because neither of you are qualified or learned enough to interpret anything)the laws based on your own opinions and biases.

You're armchair ref'ing the Super Bowl and the only football experience you have is playing Madden '08.

I'm not ignoring anything, merely giving my opinion.

Point out where I scream and cry anything. Cite to source would be appreciated.

Are not the justices on the bench "interpreting" based on their own opinions and biases?(sp?)

I base my opinion that restricting the purchase of a firearm is unconstitutional based on my own opinions and biases, and actively convey my opinions on these issues to my congressman, senator, etc because I am trying to change the country to work the way that I believe the founding fathers meant it to.

Is not this the basis for our government, of the people by the people for the people?

Where exactly is the harm? It is the way it's supposed to work after all.

How bout you calm down a little there stylez. What is my opinion worth to you? About as much as you paid for it. Free.

Man, you getting all upset over my opnion is like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

I wasn't actually refering to you, when I said "you," but rather washington and the rest of the people that like to argue that they know the law better than the justices do. I tend tointerchange "you" as just an abstract person and you, personally.

The rest of what you said, I really have no problem with. That is how the country is supposed to work. What people like washington don't get, is that the opinion they're pushing is just that -opinion. They seem to think they're blessed from heaven as the only ones that are right. The reality is that everyone in this country wants this country to function to their own liking, and that's fine. That's what we have a representative system for. If you don't like, change it. Argue for your opinion, but don't ever claim it's the absolute truth.

Says the kid who thinks that everything he says is the greatest human wisdom since Solomon. :quirky

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Says the kid who thinks that everything he says is the greatest human wisdom since Solomon. :quirky

What you don't realize is that it's a rare daywhen I argue FOR anything around here. I generally just challange peoples' illogical opinions, and in return they assign me an opinion to argue against. Washington is a good example of this.

 

[Bill in VA]

imported post

.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Bill in VA wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

... all gun laws are blatant attempts to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. ...

EXTRA! EXTRA! Japs bomb Pearl Harbor!

The sun rises in the east.

Ice is cold.



You're preaching to the choir, brother, but thanks for pointing out to us that laws restricting firearms possession are in violation of the Second Amendment.

The point of my thread was to begin giving more people coherent arguments against the antis and to use in court (hence the referring to previous SCOTUS decisions) so that they can beat any charge they may face.

For example, how much ammunition do you have? In Massachusetts, a person is in jail for having 10,000 rounds in his car, and 20,000 rounds in his home. That could be any one of us. I have almost 8,000 rounds right now and I'm still buying more (I have four guns, an AK, AR, .45 and a 9mm so, 2000 rounds per essentially). If I get more than 10,000, will I become a suspect? If I have 5,000 rounds in my car that I plan to take with me to the range, would that allow the BATFE to arrest me and for a Federal prosecutor to charge me? With what?

We need to practice not only the case precedent, but know the rights we have backwards and forwards.... so arguing it here, or discussing it here to flesh out the idea is the purpose....

And its obvious from the discussion that not everyone here believes that gun laws are a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Freeflight]

imported post

Just ignore the Trolls and don't feed them... they will go away...

What you have posted here isvery helpful.. thanks.



David. AKA Freeflight.