Jump to content
William1444

assault rifles are unconstitutional and illegal

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Giujo said:

Facts like this piece of bull$hit?...

 the explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms MUST BE in a well regulated militia

show me WHERE  IN the constitution this ridiculous "requirement" is...

 

A well regulated militia ........ the right to keep and bear arms - second amendment

which slightly "amends" section 8 of article 1

$hitforbrains

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Facts like this piece of bull$hit?...

 the explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms MUST BE in a well regulated militia

show me WHERE  IN the constitution this ridiculous "requirement" is...

 

A well regulated militia ........ the right to keep and bear arms - second amendment

which slightly "amends" section 8 of article 1

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

In the construction of law every word, the words placement, every capitalization, every period or comma, all punctuation, has a specific meaning. The comma after the word State means the preceding wording is a preparatory phrase. The only wording in the second amendment that is legally compelling is the word Shall preceded by a comma. The word people is self explanatory... It means the people as a whole separated from the capitalized word State.

 

At the writing of the Constitution the word militia meant all able-bodied people. If they meant a state militia they would have refered to it as an organized militia.

Regulated meant well supplied as in regulation issue... The same type of firearm the organized militia would use.

 

The wording of the founding fathers in The Federalist Papers makes it crystal clear that the militia was all of the people and their intent was clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed by governments. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that this is a collective right of the government and not the people ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights is a catalog of individual rights and the founding fathers would not be stupid enough to place one restriction of the people by the central government in it... The central government that they feared the most and was the impetus for the revolution and the drafting of the Constitution and the first damn place. Those would hold this meaning are liars or complete idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Another way to look it is that at the time of the Constitution, the average citizen had access to every weapon available to the US military.  What changed in the Constitution?

Nah, they didn't have access to cannons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scout said:

Nah, they didn't have access to cannons.

 

And you know this how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

 

What is your source for this bullshyt? And don't cite the Constitution because it's not in there. Cite a source or STFU!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

The Constitution provides for ways to change it.    It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards.    And the purpose of 

that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy, 

and NOT TO overthrow the US government.    republicans and gun nuts need to get their heads out of 

their fat asses.

 

 

Oh, and define "assault rifle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Giujo said:

And you know this how?

Name five people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Libswatter said:

 

Oh, and define "assault rifle".

Already provided one.

Go back a few pages and you will find it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scout said:

Name five people.

 

 

I believe YOU made the assertion that they didn't have access to cannons.  The burden is on you to offer proof/support for YOUR assertion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William1444 said:

 It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards.  

 

 

The Constitution does not say that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked to a militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

Wrong.  The Constitution does not limit the kind of "arms" an individual may own.  And, no one's "grandfather" is mentioned in the Constitution. 


 

Quote

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

Who cares.  Irrelevant.   Right to own firearms is an individual right.

 

Quote

The Constitution provides for ways to change it. 

Correct.  The 2nd Amendment hasn't been changed.   It is still in full force.

 

Quote

It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the explicit wording of the Constitution

Premise is wrong........conclusions drawn are wrong.......statement is just DUMB.

 

Quote

which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards. 

Wrong.  The Constitution does not say that at all.  The Supreme Court confirmed that it does not say that........ English must be your second language. 

 

Quote

And the purpose of that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy,

That is one of an unlimited number of "purposes", as the Constitution does not have any limitation on why a person can own firearms.  Again, English is clearly not your first language.  You hate America and all that it was founded upon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

I believe YOU made the assertion that they didn't have access to cannons.  The burden is on you to offer proof/support for YOUR assertion.

 

 

No, it isn't.

The original assertion (with NO support) was that people in the 1780s had access to all the equipment available.

No evidence was provided of that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, William1444 said:

I wonder how ramba wonder woman would do with someone shooting back at her, maybe even from cover, ya think?

 

I don't know. Why don't you satisfy your curiosity by trying it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Skans said:

Wrong.  The Constitution does not say that at all.  The Supreme Court confirmed that it does not say that........ English must be your second language.

 

And he doesn't have a first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Giujo said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

In the construction of law every word, the words placement, every capitalization, every period or comma, all punctuation, has a specific meaning. The comma after the word State means the preceding wording is a preparatory phrase.

NO, just good grammar.  

 

The only wording in the second amendment that is legally compelling is the word Shall preceded by a comma.

Or, it could even refer to the militia being necessary to a free state, shall not be infringed. 

to just connect it to arms like a single shot muzzle loader, the comma would not be there.

 

The word people is self explanatory... It means the people as a whole separated from the capitalized word State.

people, a group of more than just one which is a person.  individuals do not have a right to guns, only those people 

in a well regulated militia, organized, disciplined and armed by Congress.

 

At the writing of the Constitution the word militia meant all able-bodied people. If they meant a state militia they would have refered to it as an organized militia.

The word organized state militia is in the body of the Constitution.

 

Regulated meant well supplied as in regulation issue... The same type of firearm the organized militia would use.

Nope, regulated and armed means BY CONGRESS.   It is in the body of the Constitution.

 

The wording of the founding fathers in The Federalist Papers makes it crystal clear

The constitution is crystal clear.   It is the highest law of the land.   Forget the federalist papers.

 

that the militia was all of the people

The militia is ONLY the organized body of people, organized, disciplined, well regulated, and armed by congress.

That is all crystal clear from the exact words of the Constitution.

 

and their intent was clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed by governments. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that this is a collective right of the government and not the people ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights is a catalog of individual rights

The Constitution spells out that the militia is the body of states militias organized, armed, disciplined, and well regulated by Congress.

 

and the founding fathers would not be stupid enough to place one restriction of the people by the central government in it...

It is not a restriction on citizens.    Section 8 of Article 1 spells out the duties of Congress.

 

The central government that they feared the most and was the impetus for the revolution and the drafting of the Constitution and the first damn place. Those would hold this meaning are liars or complete idiots.

The purpose of the militia is spelled out to be to repel invasions by foreign governments and suppression of 

insurrections like the confederacy of those who would change the government by force rather than by elections.  Duhh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Libswatter said:

What is your source for this bullshyt? And don't cite the Constitution because it's not in there. Cite a source or

 

History does not show the Colonialists to have any personal weapons other than the single shot muzzle loader.

So now

STFU!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scout said:

Already provided one.

Go back a few pages and you will find it. 

 

The thread is only two pages long. I do not see a definition of "assault rifle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Libswatter said:

Oh, and define "assault rifle"

automatic or semi automatic rifles that fire more than one shot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, William1444 said:

 

 

I told you to cite your source. You did not do that. Now do it or STFU. Your source is NOT the Constitution because it's not in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, William1444 said:

 

 

Where do you get that definition? One can be assaulted with any rifle......or a baseball bat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All should read this, but my pals, the GUN CONTROL Advocates, should consider it required reading. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

headshot

Mike Weisser, Contributor
Mike the Gun Guy

Quibbling Over The Definition Of ‘Assault Weapon’ Misses The Point

07/12/2016 06:11 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017

In the aftermath of the terrible events in Dallas, the argument has once again erupted over the definition of an ‘assault rifle,’ because the early but unconfirmed reports identified the shooter’s gun as an AR, although the gun was finally identified as an SKS. Now in fact both guns were originally designed for military use, but the SKS, generally speaking, needs to be reloaded more frequently, whereas the AR is often used with hi-cap mags. But once President Obama said the magic words yesterday about how the shooter used a gun that was “not intended for city streets,” then Gun-nut Nation went into an immediate rant about how the gun used in Dallas was nothing other than a semi-automatic, top-loading rifle which is just like any other modern, sporting gun.

 

In the interests of helping my GVP friends understand the ins and outs of the assault rifle debate, here is a picture of a standard assault rifle which can be found and purchased in just about every location that sells guns. It can also be acquired via a private transaction, and can also be carried openly in places like Texas and some other dumb states.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

mike weisser

This gun, plus or minus a few other attachments, is what is generally considered to be an ‘assault rifle’ or an ‘assault weapon,’ for the simple reason that when the Feds declared a ten-year ban on such guns back in 1994, a gun fell into the prohibited category if it had a detachable magazine and two of five of the other design features identified in the picture above. If it didn’t have at least two of those design features it could still be manufactured and sold, as long as the detachable magazine only contained a maximum of 10 rounds. The magazine limitation applied to magazines that were used in handguns as well.

 

When the ban on assault weapons expired in 2005, Gun-nut Nation struck back with a vengeance, not only greasing its Congressional friends to vote against an extension of the ban, but also starting up a loud campaign to rid the American lexicon, particularly the shooting lexicon, of using the word ‘assault’ at all. And this campaign took the form of declaring that, by definition, ‘assault’ weapons had nothing to do with civilian, sporting guns because the former were automatic weapons that were prohibited from civilian use. Additionally, any semi-automatic rifle (one trigger pull — one round fires) was a ‘sporting’ gun because, because, duh, Gun-nut Nation declared it to be a sporting gun. Period. End of debate.

 

Know this: The campaign to promote ownership of AR rifles by rebranding them as ‘modern sporting’ anything is totally and completely full of crap. Because it doesn’t really matter whether my friend Dianne Feinstein gets it right or wrong when she refers to ‘automatic guns.’ It doesn’t matter whether AR rifles ‘only’ figure in 1 percent of all the shooting deaths each year that involve the use of guns. It doesn’t even matter whether the Dallas shooter used an AR or an SKS. The real issue, the only issue in the argument about assault weapons is how we understand the word ‘assault.’

 

Because guns like the AR or the SKS, even if they can only fire in semi-automatic mode, weren’t designed to go after Bambi in the woods or knock Big Bird out of a tree. They were designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that was to kill human beings, and to kill as many humans as many times as the trigger of those guns can be pulled. So why should we allow Gun-nut Nation to set the terms of the debate for determining the lethality of this gun or that? Remember, they believe that it’s the people who are lethal, not the guns. Tell that one to the families of the dead cops in Dallas whose dear ones were killed with a legally-purchased gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Libswatter said:

The Constitution does not say that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked to a militia.

 

a well regulated militia . . . .  . . . . . . . right to keep and bear arms.   There, I linked them for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

The Constitution provides for ways to change it.    It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards.    And the purpose of 

that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy, 

and NOT TO overthrow the US government.    republicans and gun nuts need to get their heads out of 

their fat asses.

 

 

You are wrong!

I have the Right to posses the latest and most modern firearms available, now we can agree having a Tank or fighter plane is somewhat over the top.

The Militia is every citizen in this country not the National Guard and the purpose of the Militia is  to protect the citizens and  the Constitution from a  Tyrannical Government or as I like to call them, Democrats. As long as the Elected Government follows the Constitution and doesn't start kicking in doors and taking away the Rights of citizens everything runs smooth, start acting like a communist, socialist government and it is our Duty to squash the Tyrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Skans said:

Wrong.  The Constitution does not limit the kind of "arms" an individual may own. 

And, no one's "grandfather" is mentioned in the Constitution. LOL.

 

Right to own firearms is an individual right. ONLY if you are in a state national guard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, William1444 said:

a well regulated militia . . . .  . . . . . . . right to keep and bear arms.   There, I linked them for you.

 

If you think that's the way it reads, you're more ignorant than I thought. Now, read and post what the Constitution actually says. Hell, dude, you don't even know how to properly quote on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...