The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable.

SmarterthanYou said:
given that little bit of info, that a civilian can own an automatic manufactured before may 19, 1986, but prohibited from owning it if manufactured on may 20, 1986...............seems like a very arbitrary and unconstitutional law, right???
Click to expand...
Nope, not to me
 
Phantasmal said:
Nope, not to me
Click to expand...

And not to the Supreme Court either. SmarterthanYou is obviously not a Constitutional lawyer. He doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Every law is not in effect the day before it takes effect. If that was the measure, every law would be unconstitutional.
 
Concart said:
And not to the Supreme Court either. SmarterthanYou is obviously not a Constitutional lawyer. He doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Every law is not in effect the day before it takes effect. If that was the measure, every law would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The as has been in effect since the 1930’s, hmmm, think the gangster era had anything to do with it? St. Valentine’s Day massacre?
 
Concart said:
And not to the Supreme Court either. SmarterthanYou is obviously not a Constitutional lawyer. He doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Every law is not in effect the day before it takes effect. If that was the measure, every law would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

i'm very glad about not being a constitutional lawyer, since they seem to be the ones fucking shit up regarding the constitution. but since you're chiming in, maybe you can explain why YOU think it's not arbitrary, since there isn't a bit of difference between an M16-A2 built on May 17, 1986 and an M16-A2 built on May 20, 1986.....................
 
Phantasmal said:
The as has been in effect since the 1930’s, hmmm, think the gangster era had anything to do with it? St. Valentine’s Day massacre?
Click to expand...

what is 'as'?????? and no, the NFA had nothing to do with crime by civilians/gangsters and everything to do with government being outgunned by the shine runners
 
Concart said:
Yep. I'd also add that THIS is the very reason I used nuclear weapon as an example of an 'arm' you can't 'bear'. It was described as ridiculous, but as soon as I took it down a notch, it became an idiotic semantics discussion instead of focusing on the OP. You cannot purchase a fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1986. So both examples are relevant.
Click to expand...
Their are plenty of machine guns for sale.
You made a stupid comment, own it.
 
Rune said:
Their are plenty of machine guns for sale.
You made a stupid comment, own it.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. And obviously you can't respond to it, and instead are now resorting to ad homs. By denying you the right to own a nuclear weapon, am I infringing on your right to bear arms? Yes or no?
 
Concart said:
Yep. I'd also add that THIS is the very reason I used nuclear weapon as an example of an 'arm' you can't 'bear'. It was described as ridiculous, but as soon as I took it down a notch, it became an idiotic semantics discussion instead of focusing on the OP. You cannot purchase a fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1986. So both examples are relevant.
Click to expand...

And an example proving that certain gun control laws work.
 
Concart said:
No I didn't. And obviously you can't respond to it, and instead are now resorting to ad homs. By denying you the right to own a nuclear weapon, am I infringing on your right to bear arms? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes you are. That's not the question the question is, is it right for the govt to do it?
 
domer76 said:
H E L L E R
Click to expand...

Richard Heller challenged the District's law banning virtually all handguns on Second Amendment grounds. The Court agreed with Heller, finding the ban unconstitutional and holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep suitable weapons at home for self-defense unconnected to militia service.

My 9 mm is a semi automatic handgun, are you for banning it?
 
Concart said:
No I didn't. And obviously you can't respond to it, and instead are now resorting to ad homs. By denying you the right to own a nuclear weapon, am I infringing on your right to bear arms? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Back to absurdum?
No thanks.
Play your game with someone who gives a fuck what you think.

Truth; you said I can't own a machine gun.
You were wrong.
Fuck right off.
 
Wolverine said:
Richard Heller challenged the District's law banning virtually all handguns on Second Amendment grounds. The Court agreed with Heller, finding the ban unconstitutional and holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep suitable weapons at home for self-defense unconnected to militia service.

My 9 mm is a semi automatic handgun, are you for banning it?
Click to expand...

The ban required gun locks. That’s what they overturned. But, you missed the rest of the majority opinion written by Scalia.

He said the ruling does not allow possession of any gun, any where at any time. That laws regulating manufacture and sale are constitutional. In other words, ‘infringed’, motherfucker. Comprendè?
 
Rune said:
Back to absurdum?
No thanks.
Play your game with someone who gives a fuck what you think.

Truth; you said I can't own a machine gun.
You were wrong.
Fuck right off.
Click to expand...

Ad homs mean I win. Thanks for playing. Right back at ya pal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top