HSFBfan Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: Simple man with way too simple minded math... so are we being intellectually dishonest today? Or just plain ole stupid... since when does actually purchasing and owning a gun equal the number of people who believe in the right to do so... clue... it does not only true statement you have posted in quite some time... NRA is collecting money hand over fist from people that do and do not own a gun. Its good to see people stand up for their rights 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 Well as I said last night the first lawsuit is in https://www.dailywire.com/news/29128/second-amendment-foundation-files-suit-against-amanda-prestigiacomo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 9 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Well as I said last night the first lawsuit is in https://www.dailywire.com/news/29128/second-amendment-foundation-files-suit-against-amanda-prestigiacomo Not likely to have much success as the courts have made clear that gun control laws are perfectly legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, noonereal said: Not likely to have much success as the courts have made clear that gun control laws are perfectly legal. By what ruling? Can you give me the court case that points this out? Biggest case out there is Heller. Someone brought up that these clowns that sit on the board want to ban hand guns which you cant under Heller v District of Columbia The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. 2787*2787 The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: By what ruling? Can you give me the court case that points this out? Biggest case out there is Heller. Someone brought up that these clowns that sit on the board want to ban hand guns which you cant under Heller v District of Columbia The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. 2787*2787 The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. So you think the suits will be won? We will see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, noonereal said: So you think the suits will be won? We will see. I think under Heller v District of Columbia they have to win. Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides which loaded "arms" a homeowner may keep. The majority says that that Amendment protects those weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Ante, at 2816. This definition conveniently excludes machineguns, but permits handguns, which the majority describes as "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home." Ante, at 2818; see also ante, at 2816 - 2817. But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun. On the majority's reasoning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self-defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In essence, the majority determines what regulations are permissible by looking to see what existing regulations permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning. Read that paragraph and tell me what you think of that These weapons are already in the home and can be argued that they are for home protection. And now that they are for home protection Congress can not ban these weapons Let me read from a joint congressional report dated 1866. In some parts of South Carolina, armed parties are without proper authority, engaged in seizing all firearms found in the hands of freemen. Such conduct is in clear and direct violation of their personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States which declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 7 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: I think under Heller v District of Columbia they have to win. Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides which loaded "arms" a homeowner may keep. The majority says that that Amendment protects those weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Ante, at 2816. This definition conveniently excludes machineguns, but permits handguns, which the majority describes as "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home." Ante, at 2818; see also ante, at 2816 - 2817. But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun. On the majority's reasoning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self-defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In essence, the majority determines what regulations are permissible by looking to see what existing regulations permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning. Read that paragraph and tell me what you think of that These weapons are already in the home and can be argued that they are for home protection. And now that they are for home protection Congress can not ban these weapons Honest, I think we need repeal of the second amendment. As this will not happen, it's likely best to go to church daily. Not being a wise guy, just my way of saying that this issue is impossible to bring to a reasoned, rational, 2018 conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, noonereal said: Honest, I think we need repeal of the second amendment. As this will not happen, it's likely best to go to church daily. Not being a wise guy, just my way of saying that this issue is impossible to bring to a reasoned, rational, 2018 conclusion. Honestly I think your crazy for thinking this but in this country you are allowed to have crazy opinions. My 2nd amendment rights will never be infringed. And under the Supreme Court case that I provided you cannot repeal it. As one gentleman said last week if you repeal the 2nd amendment you will see the entire thing collapse https://www.newsmax.com/politics/nra-second-amendment-kyle-kashuv-clarence-thomas/2018/04/05/id/852891/ Justice Thomas tells Parkland survivor 2nd amendment will stand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Honestly I think your crazy for thinking this but in this country you are allowed to have crazy opinions. My 2nd amendment rights will never be infringed. And under the Supreme Court case that I provided you cannot repeal it. As one gentleman said last week if you repeal the 2nd amendment you will see the entire thing collapse makes you wonder were our fore fathers just a bunch of fuc% ups? Between the 2nd amendment, slavery, 2 senators from every state, the electoral college, voting rights.... what a bunch of fumbling, arrogant, rich, white guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, noonereal said: makes you wonder were our fore fathers just a bunch of fuc% ups? Between the 2nd amendment, slavery, 2 senators from every state, the electoral college, voting rights.... what a bunch of fumbling, arrogant, rich, white guys Nope they were a bunch of very smart men who understood what they were fighting against and to make sure it would never happen to free men again. Slavery....happened everywhere. Way of life all around the world. Irish were slaves...Blacks were slaves. I believe even the people of India under British rule were slaves. You talk about slavery like America was the only country who did it. And you only hear about the brutality of slavery. Youll never hear of the good slave owners who treated their slaves very nicely and the slaves after being free went back to their owners. Electoral college I know you hate it but it makes a ton of sense. Texas CA and NY should not be the only states represented in our government. Those states in between knowns as the heartland of America or the fly over states have to be represented. They are an important part of this country. So at the end of this little rant i guess I do agree with the founding fathers. Slavery was going to die off sooner or later. And honestly 600k Americans didnt have to die to end it. On another note it is quite ironic on this date 1776 US congress opens all ports to international trade. Now we are trying to fix this problem with the countries that have been taking advantage of this......Did the founding fathers not see this issue?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 30 minutes ago, noonereal said: makes you wonder were our fore fathers just a bunch of fuc% ups? Between the 2nd amendment, slavery, 2 senators from every state, the electoral college, voting rights.... what a bunch of fumbling, arrogant, rich, white guys There you go ..... Let it ALL out....breath deep...keep going.... You da best....founding fathers got nothing on you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 Quote the ban passed Monday night "outlaws any weapon the village leaders deem 'assault weapons,' including AR-15s. But the ban also includes 'semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with certain features.'" This ordinance is toast. It clearly does not fly under the Heller decision. It might have had a prayer if they'd just banned AR-15s, but in this form it's history. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 1 minute ago, zulu1128 said: This ordinance is toast. It clearly does not fly under the Heller decision. It might have had a prayer if they'd just banned AR-15s, but in this form it's history. Actually Ar-15 is now a popular weapon for self defense and under Heller congress cant ban it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.