Federal judge rules Oregon’s tough new gun law is constitutional

[Into the Night]

He's referencing an atomic bomb, and giving a sample of the thinking found exclusively on the Right.

Because the Left wants to destroy the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

No it's not.

It is legal to own one, just like any other weapon.

 

[Into the Night]

I totally agree with the large magazine ban.

Unconstitutional. That violates the 2nd amendment and all State constitutions.

Not quite sure about the permit to buy a sporting weapon, though.

Unconstitutional. That violates the 4th amendment, and often the 5th amendment.

One doesn't need a permit to buy golf clubs or fishing tackle.

Correct. It is not constitutional to require a permit to buy a gun.

 

[Into the Night]

Unless you’re Bob Barker a golf club isn’t likely to hurt anything other than your pride.

Any golf club is easily turned into a deadly weapon. Did you know that people have been killed by a putter?

 

[Into the Night]

If you can’t hold it it is not covered by the Constitution. If it’s considered unusual it is not protected by the 2nd.

No such limitation is specified in the 2nd amendment.

Heller made that clear.

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

A high capacity clip falls under the dangerous and usual clause in Heller.

Unconstitutional.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if this SCOTUS overruled Scalia?

Irrelevant.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you saying those on the left don't own guns? What is this "sample of the thinking found exclusively on the Right" you're referring to?

It's simple. Democrats ignore and despise the Constitution.

Democrats deny Article I, giving the government and Congress unlimited power, passing ex post facto laws, and by attempting to overrule the Senate's authority to try impeachments.
Democrats deny Article II, not acknowledging the authority of the President, and ignoring the right of State legislatures to choose their electors.
Democrats deny Article III, giving the Supreme Court power OVER the Constitution, not under it.
Democrats deny Article V, changing the Constitution at will WITHOUT the authority of the States.
Democrats deny Article VI, since they do not recognize the Constitution of the United States.
Democrats deny the 1st amendment by supporting censorship of political opposition, and establishing the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green as state religions, and prohibiting the exercise of Christianity and the Judaism by citizens and government employees, and by using violence as a right of expression.
Democrats deny the 2nd amendment by limiting and banning various weapons, particularly guns.
Democrats deny the 4th amendment by demanding personal papers and effects WITHOUT court authority.
Democrats deny the 5th amendment by attempting to force people to witness against themselves, and supporting the taking of property without due process.
Democrats deny the 6th amendment by convicting by accusation.
Democrats deny the 7th amendment by banning the use of juries in trials, and of not even having a trial to convict.
Democrats deny the 8th amendment by imposing harsh sentences on political prisoners, and suggesting the same to all political dissidence, even if it's peaceful.
Democrats deny the 9th amendment by claiming the Constitution (which they do not recognize anyway) lists all the rights that people have.
Democrats deny the 10th amendment by horning in on States rights, and the people's rights.
Democrats deny the 12th amendment by using election fraud.
Democrats deny the 13th amendment by requiring 'reparations'.
Democrats deny the 14th amendment by applying laws unequally to different classes of people.
Democrats deny the 15th amendment by applying laws supporting bigotry and racism.
Democrats deny the 16th amendment by their 'tax the rich' schemes.
Democrats deny the 19th amendment by their sexist laws, redefining sex, and placing one sex above another by law.
Democrats deny the 24th amendment by bribing voters to vote for them.
Democrats deny the 25th amendment by attempting ex post facto laws to declare a 'deciding body'.

DEMOCRATS do not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Profound dumbness, though "exclusively" was overstating it a little.

Insult fallacy. Bigotry.

 

[Into the Night]

You made the central point. The amendment doesn't cover all "arms", only those to which the word "bear", meaning carry, applies. Under Heller's reasonableness standard not every bearable "arm" would survive a Second Amendment challenge either probably.
Flame throwers, for example.

Bearing an arm does not mean 'carry'.

No court is above the Constitution.

Yes, you can own a flamethrower. I know a few people that make them! One can shoot a flame fifty feet. She has managed to put colorant in the flame too. (I pity the fool that dates her!)
You can own a cannon. (quite a few people do!)
You can own a tank. (a fair number do!)
You can own a fighter aircraft. (wonderful for aerobatics!)
You can own a bomb (I make them myself for entertainment purposes! I even shoot them at town firework displays!)
You can own uranium (and even purify into weapons grade material!)
You can own a trebuche (one guy in the midwest hurls old Buicks with his!)
You can own a catapult.
You can own a lethal dart.
You can own poison (great for rats and other pests!).
You can own a sword.
You can own a gun, including any gun with large magazine or even a machine gun.

The 2nd amendment does NOT list any weapon by type, size, ability to carry it, brand name, how 'scary' it looks, the size of magazine, or any accessory to any weapon.
ANY limitation on ANY weapon is unconstitutional.

No court has any authority to say otherwise.

 

[Into the Night]

I find it hilarious that you leftist morons THINK you KNOW what the 2nd Amendent means, yet have NO CLUE what it really means and you IGNORE irrefutable evidence provided to you about it, preferring your own mentally deficient desire

That's because they want to destroy the Constitution and all State constitutions.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm going with Scalias interpretation. Instead of the interpretation of a fucking moron on the internet. Call me crazy.

Scalia has no authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

I am NOT interpreting the Constitution. It is written in plain English. It does not need interpretation. Only the States have the authority to change the Constitution.

YOU are trying to play word games and semantics fallacies to discard the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

It is not a ban but various regulations on owning certain weapons.

Paradox. Irrational.

Each state that regulates assault weapons defines that term in its law--start by reading the laws in those states as it differs somewhat.

You are making shit up now. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon.

If the Supreme Court decided to adhere to the Constitution, they changed their interpretation of the provision.

They have no authority to.

Obviously, they do interpret the Constitution.

They have no authority to.

 

[Into the Night]

Absurdity; the last desperate refuge for the ignorant, the dishonest and the stupid.

While it is an absurd argument fallacy, it IS legal to own an atomic bomb. You ARE responsible for it's storage and use though, just as with any weapon.

 

[Into the Night]

You can blame your buddy Thomas Jefferson for instituting judicial review.

You cannot speak for the dead. You can only speak for yourself. Contextomy fallacy.

NO COURT IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm going with Scalias interpretation. Instead of the interpretation of a fucking moron on the internet. Call me crazy.

I find it even MORE hilarious that you stupid fucks hate everything about scalias positions and decisions..........EXCEPT for the heller one...........yeah, i'll call you crazy because you fucking ARE crazy.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

You cannot speak for the dead. You can only speak for yourself. Contextomy fallacy.

NO COURT IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION!

So when there is a dispute with the constitution and a law then how do you propose to solve it?

Just ignore it since nobody has the authority to determine what the constitution means?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So when there is a dispute with the constitution and a law then how do you propose to solve it?

Just ignore it since nobody has the authority to determine what the constitution means?

only one entity gets to decide what the Constitution means. Judges get to review and interpret LAWS, not the Constitution. If they interpret that the LAW violates the plain written text of the Constitution, then that's what they decide.

The founders did NOT prescribe limited powers to the federal government and then hand that federal government the keys to define the limits of their prescribed powers.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

only one entity gets to decide what the Constitution means. Judges get to review and interpret LAWS, not the Constitution. If they interpret that the LAW violates the plain written text of the Constitution, then that's what they decide.

The founders did NOT prescribe limited powers to the federal government and then hand that federal government the keys to define the limits of their prescribed powers.

You realize the constitution is not that clear on many issues.

So who decides when the constitution isn't clear?

For instance, are concealed weapons allowed per the constitution?

It doesn't say so but it doesn't say they aren't.

So what do you do then?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You realize the constitution is not that clear on many issues.

are you smarter than the founders? because they thought it was pretty clear.

So who decides when the constitution isn't clear?

we the people.

For instance, are concealed weapons allowed per the constitution?

that would depend upon each state constitution

It doesn't say so but it doesn't say they aren't.

So what do you do then?

correct, it doesn't say so, but Constitutions do not list out all of our rights. They constitution a framework for government entities and prescribe those entities powers. Therefore, if something isn't specifically designated to a government entity, they have NO AUTHORITY over it.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

are you smarter than the founders? because they thought it was pretty clear.


we the people.


that would depend upon each state constitution



correct, it doesn't say so, but Constitutions do not list out all of our rights. They constitution a framework for government entities and prescribe those entities powers. Therefore, if something isn't specifically designated to a government entity, they have NO AUTHORITY over it.

1. The founders kept slavery, I wouldn't have so yes I am smarter.

2. So if "we the people" decide what is constitutional you want a popular vote on every issue involving the constitution?

3. State constitutions do not overrule the federal constitution per the supremacy clause.

4. So it's not constitutional for a a state to set speed limits. If a state does you could take them to court and argue it's not constitutional per your argument.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. The founders kept slavery, I wouldn't have so yes I am smarter.

judging those in the past by our current status quo is a sign of a weak mind.

2. So if "we the people" decide what is constitutional you want a popular vote on every issue involving the constitution?

we have a jury system that decides

3. State constitutions do not overrule the federal constitution per the supremacy clause.

the supremeacy clause only applies when the same powers, fed and state, conflict. you should read the 10th Amendment

4. So it's not constitutional for a a state to set speed limits. If a state does you could take them to court and argue it's not constitutional per your argument.

every state Constitution i've ever read specifically assigns powers to state legislatures to regulate public roadways, i.e. set speed limits. so your premise is false.