Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

I see you seem to have studied constitutional law in college,, or some such place as that.. BUT the founding fathers didn't include the "second amendment" into any part the document they signed. Hence the word "amendment"  which is from the word amend  meaning to change.

 

 

 

 

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

 

 

but-thats-none-of-my2.jpg

 

So much for selective quotation of past decisions, Now go to the 2014 decisions re Chicago restrictive [as in banishment] of firearms and the supporting Supreme Court rationale. No, go find it yourself!

 

Funny thing, gun banners say ban this, it is not suitable for military uses, then say ban that because it is or resembles a military weapon. Rational people know that you can't have it both ways, but then the dedicated Nannies!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

First off i ain't gonna go "find it myself"  if you have a rational arguement then post it otherwise YOU GO FIND IT..  If you are on Dolomites side you might re read the banter him and Datzen had before i posted,,,, I posted legal precedent from a shit long time ago.. Dolomite posted a legal arguement from about 6 fucking years ago..  That had nothing to do with 30 round banana  clips Mike mentioned .. ( hence the Germans bombing pearl harbor video) . It is your prerogative to post anything even if it has nothing to do with what is being discussed at the time,,, but only the feeble minded feel the need to do so to make their case more believeable ,,, to like minds.

 

Oh and just for the record at about 4:30 PST a dude ( my friend if you will) was talkng about how he is trying to expunge  a felony in order to get his personal carry permit,,,,,,,, right here behind me ,,,, at my kitchen table.

 

In other words i laugh and am somewhat offended at you calling me a gun banner.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

We "gun types" go straight to our constitution because it is(or at least was)the basis for our country, unfortunately the majority if Americans don't seem to care about it anymore. The first 10 amendments are called THE BILL OF RIGHTS and the founding fathers of this country put them in place to protect the people from a tyrannous government....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....thats a big government with a huge head and tiny arms

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Cuz everyones memories of their highschool years should be a photo like this.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/20/new-york-high-school-senior-prevails-in-fight-to-pose-with-gun-in-yearbook/

 

 

I think shes kinda cute in a lecherous grumpy old man type of way.

Never understood why people 1) get so freaked out about a gun 2) have to fight rules over something as stupid as having a picture in the yearbook.

Link to comment

It's a picture for the yearbook, not to display a personal lifestyle choice to glorify the gun. School could have cropped and pasted it in. If she or parent objects then obvious they only want the gun in the picture for the gun's sake. I don't know what's worse, refusing the photo or submitting it in the first place. This was making an issue out of a non issue. Stupid really with gun violence at schools..

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Never understood why people 1) get so freaked out about a gun 2) have to fight rules over something as stupid as having a picture in the yearbook.

 

 

You know for once Tyler,  you are absolutely right ,,,, i'm related to a substitute teacher up at Mt. Pilchuck high school ,,, want me to ask him if you can put on an assembly in the lunch room on how guns never hurt anyone??

    Putting that aside,, if you had kids in school ,,you would know there has been a VERY strict weapons policy in place in all of the schools for probably as long as you have been alive ,, and even you will have to admit a gun ( as harmless as we know it is) would be classified as a weapon ..  Zero tolerance,  ever hear of it ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Stupid really with gun violence at schools..

^^^^^^^^ This was kind of the point I was trying to make.

 

Places of learning are, and always should be sacrosanct.

 

I suppose the litmus test for the yearbook photo would be to ask the attendees of all the schools listed in the link below, what their thoughts are of having a photo of a student with a firearm in their yearbook.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Link to comment

You know for once Tyler, you are absolutely right ,,,, i'm related to a substitute teacher up at Mt. Pilchuck high school ,,, want me to ask him if you can put on an assembly in the lunch room on how guns never hurt anyone??

Putting that aside,, if you had kids in school ,,you would know there has been a VERY strict weapons policy in place in all of the schools for probably as long as you have been alive ,, and even you will have to admit a gun ( as harmless as we know it is) would be classified as a weapon .. Zero tolerance, ever hear of it ?

I understand zero tolerance, that's why I don't understand people who have to fight that. Like Mike said it making an issue out of a non issue.

Link to comment

I might be classified as a "gun nut" but I also am an advocate for FOLLOWING THE FUCKING LAW! I carry a pistol everywhere with me (never even noticed have you Naner?), with the exceptions listed in Washington state law. (Bars, schools ,state gubment buildins)

  • Like 2
Link to comment

I might be classified as a "gun nut" but I also am an advocate for FOLLOWING THE FUCKING LAW! I carry a pistol everywhere with me (never even noticed have you Naner?), with the exceptions listed in Washington state law. (Bars, schools ,state gubment buildins)

 

Now, why???? do you suppose that is?

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure a reasonably armed militia should be well equipped with nukes and chemical weapons to stand a chance against the government militia. I'm quite certain the right to bear arms should not be limited to such measly devices as machine guns and cluster bombs. We need to be armed damnit!

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I'm pretty sure a reasonably armed militia should be well equipped with nukes and chemical weapons to stand a chance against the government militia. I'm quite certain the right to bear arms should not be limited to such measly devices as machine guns and cluster bombs. We need to be armed damnit!

Enthusiast!

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Now, why???? do you suppose that is?

Well as we know from any shooting that has happened at one of those places, for not one damn reason. If some one wants to go shoot a place up, guess what, THEY GO SHOOT THE PLACE UP!!! It dossnt matter if you say "hey guy, you can't have a gun here" its not going to stop someone from doing what they want. You know what has stopped almost every shooting ever? .....a gun, whether someone shoots them selves or they're shot by some one else, that is usually now it ends.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.