Gun control debate (merged)

[Orangeburst]

Traditional And Regulatory U.S. Agencies Continued To Stockpile Guns, Ammunition, And Military-Style Equipment Under President Trump

Asked for comment on the Open the Books findings, EPA said purchases of armaments are necessary for "environmental crime-fighting."

Environmental Crime Fighters.

200K personnel is what 40% of the USA. I guess the American people are the biggest threat

 

[82_VOL_83]

How else do you think the CIA gets its armament to supply every little rebel band around the world? Can’t have that money in the intelligence budgets.

So the other alphabet agencies by multiple guns at a time with the intent to transfer to someone else?

 

[85SugarVol]

Compromise = infringement

Compromise is 2 sides giving something up in order to reach a settlement.

Still waiting to hear what they are ready to give up.

 

[85SugarVol]

200K personnel is what 40% of the USA. I guess the American people are the biggest threat

200K personnel is what 40% of the USA. I guess the American people are the biggest threat

There are more non-DOD federal employees with firearms (200,000+) than there are U.S. Marines (186,000).

More than the Marines.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

The 5 elements in the 1st Amendment are the most important freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Leftists, tyrants, communists, socialists, and other threats to democracy and our republic despise them. They are therefore addressed by the FIRST Amendment. There’s a reason that the 2nd A is the next most important. To prevent those people from taking away those rights guaranteed by the 1st A.

The 2nd A isn’t there because of flintlock nuts. It’s there to protect freedom.

 

[luthervol]

There’s only one logical interpretation of the text of the second amendment. The text is insanely clear. The right of the people shall not be infringed.

Government failure to live up to the constitution, doesn’t mean “there’s other valid ways to interpret it”.

You didn't answer. Can fully automatic weapons be banned under the 2a?

 

[85SugarVol]

You didn't answer. Can fully automatic weapons be banned under the 2a?

Is this your argument where since it’s currently law it is by default constitutional?

 

[C-south]

You didn't answer. Can fully automatic weapons be banned under the 2a?

What do you mean by fully automatic. What is the x rounds in y seconds firing rate?

 

[luthervol]

Is this your argument where since it’s currently law it is by default constitutional?

No. It's my PROOF that 2a is obviously up for interpretation.
To state otherwise is simply dumb.
And there are evidently a lot of dumb gun nuts. (Who ironically have differing interpretations themselves)

 

[C-south]

No. It's my PROOF that 2a is obviously up for interpretation.
To state otherwise is simply dumb.
And there are evidently a lot of dumb gun nuts. (Who ironically have differing interpretations themselves)

There’s nothing to interpret.

 

[85SugarVol]

No. It's my PROOF that 2a is obviously up for interpretation.
To state otherwise is simply dumb.
And there are evidently a lot of dumb gun nuts. (Who ironically have differing interpretations themselves)

Was the Espionage & Sedition Act constitutional?
Was the Alien Registration Act constitutional?
Indian Removal Acts?
How about Dred Scott? Constitutional?

No. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is not constitutional. It is in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[luthervol]

There’s nothing to interpret.

Like I said...............

 

[luthervol]

Was the Espionage & Sedition Act constitutional?
Was the Alien Registration Act constitutional?
Indian Removal Acts?
How about Dred Scott? Constitutional?

No. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is not constitutional. It is in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

It's not.
Some think it is, some think it is not.
Because it is up to interpretation.

 

[C-south]

Like I said...............

There’s only one thing you have definitive proof of…..

 

[85SugarVol]

It's not.
Some think it is, some think it is not.
Because it is up to interpretation.

Those others were interpreted as constitutional. Were they not?

 

[luthervol]

Those others were interpreted as constitutional. Were they not?

They were. Does that mean they have been wrong on every interpretation?

I think what it means is interpretations change. Some interpretations stand the test of time, others do not.

 

[85SugarVol]

They were. Does that mean they have been wrong on every interpretation?

I think what it means is interpretations change. Some interpretations stand the test of time, others do not.

So just because something is interpreted as lawful now does not make it, by definition, constitutional. Well done.

Fortunately we have seen firearm infringements not stand the test of time. Hopefully more to come on that front.

 

[85SugarVol]

The men who argued in favor of the NFA admitted it would be unconstitutional to ban those firearms.

That’s why they settled on a “tax”.

I swear I’ve heard that somewhere before…

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

One thing that seems pretty obvious is that people are making multiple purchases in a short time frame with the intent to resell illegally.

 

[luthervol]

So just because something is interpreted as lawful now does not make it, by definition, constitutional. Well done.

Fortunately we have seen firearm infringements not stand the test of time. Hopefully more to come on that front.

It makes it constitutional until it is interpreted otherwise.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

It will reduce the amount - which is the objective.

Do you ever really think about what you are saying? Critically I mean.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

The governments, even Deputy Bubba in Bumpkin County, have access to fully automatic weapons. The citizens should as well. There are unconstitutional laws that need to be repealed. Shall not be infringed needs no interpretation.

 

[85SugarVol]

It makes it constitutional until it is interpreted otherwise.

Was Dred Scott constitutional, or was it interpreted incorrectly?

 

[luthervol]

Do you ever really think about what you are saying? Critically I mean.

Obviously.

 

[luthervol]

Was Dred Scott constitutional, or was it interpreted incorrectly?

Was it constitutional for the constitution to count slaves as 3/5 of a person?