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

[Into the Night]

The US Constitution?

No, the British had strict restrictions on what arms the public was allowed to own and banned the carry of arms in most of the cities of the colonies.

You forget the 1st confederacy.

Despite the British, you could carry any gun you wanted. The British hated it, of course, but they could not stop it. Why do you think the Battle of Lexington happened? What were the British trying to do there? Why did they lose that battle?

The right of self defense is inherent, you see. No government in the world can prevent it.

 

[martin]

The US Constitution?

No, the British had strict restrictions on what arms the public was allowed to own and banned the carry of arms in most of the cities of the colonies.

Nope. Most colonists did not live in cities; gun ownership was common generally and often considered necessary protection against Indians as well as for militia activity against Indians.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Meaningless prattle. No one cares that you agree with it. It is unconstitutional.

This would be a good time, Bullshit Blob, to take your beloved constitution and stick it up your ass.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

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

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

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

Here, Milquetoast, is where I can give you the same advice that I offered to Bullshit Blob.

Take your beloved constitution and shove it up your ass.

 

[Earl]

I'm confident that the thugs in Oregon will obey these new gun laws.

Wait...they are thugs...

 

[Earl]

Here, Milquetoast, is where I can give you the same advice that I offered to Bullshit Blob.

Take your beloved constitution and shove it up your ass.

America is blessed that you are near to assuming room temperature, pendejo.

If you hate our Constitution so much, why do you live here?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

America is blessed that you are near to assuming room temperature, pendejo.

If you hate our Constitution so much, why do you live here?

1. I inherited property.

2. Europe has tough immigration laws.

3. My obligation as an American citizen who has stayed
is to try to improve America, not pretend that it's perfect when it's fucked up..

Any other stupid questions, my esteemed Vanderbilt graduate?

 

[Earl]

1. I inherited property.

2. Europe has tough immigration laws.

3. My obligation as an American citizen who has stayed
is to try to improve America, not pretend that it's perfect when it's fucked up..

Any other stupid questions, my esteemed Vanderbilt graduate?

I agree America is near to being a banana republic since Biden assumed the presidency.

You can sell your property and emigrate to Europe. Many Americans have. Socialists are welcomed there.

Improving America would be an exploit accompli if you left.

It has been said that America's most important export is the U.S. Constitution. This is because the principles laid out in the text have been replicated by every major (and many minor) democratic countries. Without the principles of the Constitution, the principles of a free society would be impossible.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were they alive today, would disagree with your stupid, Mal-informed assessment of the US Constitution.

Perhaps the Constitution of China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela or the Russian Federation would be a better match for you.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It has been said that America's most important export is the U.S. Constitution. This is because the principles laid out in the text have been replicated by every major (and many minor) democratic countries. Without the principles of the Constitution, the principles of a free society would be impossible.

You concentrate on the amendments and on the stipulated rights, Earl.

The primary function of the constitution was to create, in the actual Articles,

a new form of government for a new nation--that's what was being "constituted"--

and in that regard,

it was a monumental failure

having created the most inefficient form of government that has EVER existed on the surface of our planet.

Our form of government is SO bad

that it gives illiterate Middle American savages like yourself

more power per unit of population

than it does to the Coastal Elite who actually know what the fuck that they're doing.

This is obvious fact, not opinion, but it takes a modicum of intelligence to recognize as such.

Did you even try to get into an Eastern school?

 

[Earl]

You concentrate on the amendments and on the stipulated rights, Earl.

The primary function of the constitution was to create, in the actual Articles,

a new form of government for a new nation--that's what was being "constituted"--

and in that regard,

it was a monumental failure

having created the most inefficient form of government that has EVER existed on the surface of our planet.

Our form of government is SO bad

that it gives illiterate Middle American savages like yourself

more power per unit of population

than it does to the Coastal Elite who actually know what the fuck that they're doing.

This is obvious fact, not opinion, but it takes a modicum of intelligence to recognize as such.

Did you even try to get into an Eastern school?

Vanderbilt is called the Harvard of the South, pendejo. It's ranked at number 13 out of 443 universities in the US.

Educated (unlike yourself) Middle Americans would be more appropriate.

The Constitution does not stipulate rights...it guarantees rights that we already possess.

Your posts indicate an intentional obtuseness.

You aren't too bright, are you, ancient one?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You aren't too bright, are you, ancient one?

Engaging in discourse with you, Earl, would make me appear to be brilliant,
even were I semi-comatose.

Thanks.

 

[Earl]

Engaging in discourse with you, Earl, would make me appear to be brilliant,
even were I semi-comatose.

Thanks.

I will have to demur on your intentional obtuseness...unintentional obtuseness is more appropriate.

You appear to be semi-comatose, ancient one.

I would recommend books by Pliny the Elder. They always put me to sleep. They were non-electives at Vandy.

Grim Reaper circling? He always wins.

“Many can't go there; and many would rather die.” “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Charles Dickens

An elective at Vandy.

 

[Port Tack]

Bet it makes ZERO difference. ZERO.

No, it would take all the states to enact similar laws and then about 20-30 yrs time. People were making your stupid comment 40 yrs ago and if this happenned then it most certainly would be making a difference by now.

 

[Port Tack]

This is the first gun law to be challenged since the Court's ruling last June.

They are restricting magazines with more than 10 rounds so the fact that other states may have rules in place is irrelevant as none of them have come to the Court yet.

It's doubtful the Court will uphold this law given their previous stance on this issue.

This law has many flaws also.

You can have more than 10 rounds if you are in the military or law enforcement, if you are in your home....other things.

That is not equal and fair treatment.

It is my opinion that the Court will strike this down.

If you are in the military you can have a machine gun and a howitzer too but as a citizen you can't have them. the 2nd amendment right to bear arms does not include ALL arms. You can't have nuclear weapons either.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If you are in the military you can have a machine gun and a howitzer too but as a citizen you can't have them. the 2nd amendment right to bear arms does not include ALL arms. You can't have nuclear weapons either.

A 'civilian' can indeed own a machine gun, with certain unconstitutionally 'legal' requirements.............

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Would a civilian not heavily involved in organized crime have a very practical use for a machine gun?

One can take down a home invader with a deer rifle pretty easily,
and doing far less damage to one's walls and furniture.
Your insurance company would be less likely to give you a hard time.

The real question is,

are our 2nd Amendment nuts genuinely psychotic
or are they just seeking attention with outlandish statements?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Would a civilian not heavily involved in organized crime have a very practical use for a machine gun?

One can take down a home invader with a deer rifle pretty easily,
and doing far less damage to one's walls and furniture.
Your insurance company would be less likely to give you a hard time.

The real question is,

are our 2nd Amendment nuts genuinely psychotic
or are they just seeking attention with outlandish statements?

your opinion of what constitutes 'psychotic' is just an opinion......and a wrong one. We all know that you're a statist, preferring to have a 'benevolent' overlord than to enjoy freedom and liberty, so your opinion isn't even worth a grain of salt

 

[NiftyNiblick]

your opinion of what constitutes 'psychotic' is just an opinion......and a wrong one. We all know that you're a statist, preferring to have a 'benevolent' overlord than to enjoy freedom and liberty, so your opinion isn't even worth a grain of salt

True. Not to someone lacking the intelligence to do anything with it.
I'm not sure, STY,
that you would know what to do with a grain of salt, either.

 

[Mason Michaels]

There's nothing that can be done to change America's relationship with guns!
America is a gun junkie and nothing can change that!