Gun control debate (merged)

[0nelilreb]

My point is the 2nd amendment yields to loads of legal infringements. With the right Supreme Court, it will yield even more.

LOL sorry you don’t have the liberal activists on SCOTUS that you need to screw us all out of our rights . Thanks Trump and RGB.

 

[Ashevolle]

It’s mighty enough to keep people such as yourself from saying the 2a was meant for the militia and I shouldn’t apply to me . Isn’t it ?

My point is the 2nd amendment yields to loads of legal infringements. With the right Supreme Court, it will yield even more.

Then do better than just saying we should be like Australia.

Lol. What does you mean by "do better"? Change my opinion to something that pleases you more? I'm good.

 

[Ashevolle]

LOL sorry you don’t have the liberal activists on SCOTUS that you need to screw us all out of our rights . Thanks Trump and RGB.

Not yet.

 

[0nelilreb]

Not yet.

Everybody need a dream . You should also add a little fantasy in there like that day when you have enough states to amend the 2a .

 

[MG1968]

My point is the 2nd amendment yields to loads of legal infringements. With the right Supreme Court, it will yield even more.

Lol. What does you mean by "do better"? Change my opinion to something that pleases you more? I'm good.

No. Be specific for ****’s sake. The Australian model began with a massive, forced confiscation of legally owned firearms. Who are you willing to put in charge of a similar program in the US?

 

[Ashevolle]

Is that a ruling on him not being able to be in a military zone based on his Japanese heritage or Japanese being put into internment camps?

In this case, they were one in the same.

 

[Ashevolle]

No. Be specific for ****’s sake. The Australian model began with a massive, forced confiscation of legally owned firearms. Who are you willing to put in charge of a similar program in the US?

The federal government. You are free to ask clarifying questions where you want more details. And they were purchased once they became illegal.

 

[0nelilreb]

In this case, they were one in the same.

Not what I read , he refused to move from a military zone . The courts said that his right in that case didn’t override the nations security.

 

[Ashevolle]

Everybody need a dream . You should also add a little fantasy in there like that day when you have enough states to amend the 2a .

An amendment isnt necessary, just a Supreme Court that restricts the 2nd Amendmebt to militias. That just takes the right SCOTUS majority.

 

[Ashevolle]

Not what I read , he refused to move from a military zone . The courts said that his right in that case didn’t override the nations security.

He refused to leave his home and move into an internment camp.

On May 3, Exclusion Order Number 34 was issued, under which 23-year-old Korematsu and his family were to be relocated. Although his family followed the order, Korematsu failed to submit to relocation. He was arrested on May 30 and eventually taken to Tanforan Relocation Center in San Bruno, south of San Francisco. He was convicted in a federal district court of having violated a military order and received a sentence of five years’ probation. He and his family were subsequently relocated to Topaz Internment Camp in Utah.

 

[82_VOL_83]

The federal government. You are free to ask clarifying questions where you want more details. And they were purchased once they became illegal.

So taking something from you and giving you money for it forcefully is a purchase? You really are ****ed up.

 

[MG1968]

The federal government. You are free to ask clarifying questions where you want more details. And they were purchased once they became illegal.

Again. Change the Constitution. It should be easy with court packing Joe and Slim Shady Harris about to take over.

 

[Ashevolle]

So taking something from you and giving you money for it forcefully is a purchase? You really are ****ed up.

The government does it all the time. It's allowed for in the constitution. It's called the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.

 

[0nelilreb]

An amendment isnt necessary, just a Supreme Court that restricts the 2nd Amendmebt to militias. That just takes the right SCOTUS majority.

That’s not going to happen , but I always appreciate you left coasters and your positive attitudes thinking your progressive ideologies are what’s best for the country regardless if it involves screwing people out of their rights then complaining when people talks about how crazy you are in your bubble .

 

[hog88]

What a terrible analogy. You can do better than that.

It’s a perfect analogy. A government can do anything to an unarmed population. Once you are disarmed you are no longer a citizen you are a subject.

 

[Ashevolle]

It’s a perfect analogy. A government can do anything to an unarmed population. Once you are disarmed you are no longer a citizen you are a subject.

News flash, the government can do anything. Full stop. If you think they'll ever let you have fire power that can compete with them, you're living in a fantasy.

 

[0nelilreb]

He refused to leave his home and move into an internment camp.

On May 3, Exclusion Order Number 34 was issued, under which 23-year-old Korematsu and his family were to be relocated. Although his family followed the order, Korematsu failed to submit to relocation. He was arrested on May 30 and eventually taken to Tanforan Relocation Center in San Bruno, south of San Francisco. He was convicted in a federal district court of having violated a military order and received a sentence of five years’ probation. He and his family were subsequently relocated to Topaz Internment Camp in Utah.

Damn ..Democrats are are evil putting those poor people in camps .

 

[hndog609]

Funny how we have lots of laws that do currently infringe your right to bear arms. Apparently the comma is not as might as you presume.

Why are you being coy with this nonsense? Heller addresses the issue head on.

 

[hog88]

News flash, the government can do anything. Full stop.

Nope, that is exactly what the King of England believed. How did that turn out?

 

[Ashevolle]

Nope, that is exactly what the King of England believed. How did that turn out?

A 5-4 majority can be overturned by subsequent interpretation. Will it? Who knows. But the SCOTUS reverses course all the time.

 

[0nelilreb]

News flash, the government can do anything. Full stop. If you think they'll ever let you have fire power that can compete with them, you're living in a fantasy.

People will only be pushed by the government so far before they say it’s enough .. history is full of those lessons . Where that line in the sand is located , that’s the key . I also find this an odd stance from you considering we just listened to 4 years of the lefts screeching that the government can’t do anything it wants .

 

[hog88]

A 5-4 majority can be overturned by subsequent interpretation. Will it? Who knows. But the SCOTUS reverses course all the time.

SCOTUS can rule whatever they want, the vast majority of gun owners will ignore them.

 

[Ashevolle]

People will only be pushed by the government so far before they say it’s enough .. history is full of those lessons . Where that line in the sand is located , that’s the key . I also find this an odd stance from you considering we just listened to 4 years of the lefts screeching that the government can’t do anything it wants .

I see gun control as an acceptable public safety measure and not authoritarian control. Lots of other countries have already shown that it works. I dont expect I'm gonna change your minds. Just voicing my opinions on the matter while I kill time until kickoff.

 

[CABVOL]

SCOTUS can rule whatever they want, the vast majority of gun owners will ignore them.

Lost another gun today to the f-in creek on my farm. Damnit.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Statutory Language Not to be Construed as "Mere Surplusage"
A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that courts should "give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed."84 The modern variant is that statutes should be construed "so as to avoid rendering superfluous" any statutory language: "A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant...."85 A related principle applies to statutory amendments: there is a "general presumption" that, "when Congress alters the words of a statute, it must intend to change the statute's meaning."86 Resistance to treating statutory words as mere surplusage "should be heightened when the words describe an element of a criminal offense."87

There can be differences of opinion, of course, as to when it is "possible" to give effect to all statutory language – that is, to search for distinctions between similar terms or apparently redundant language without distorting the significance of those distinctions -- and when the general rule should give way to a more "common sense" interpretation.88

The presumption against surplusage also can guide interpretation of "redundancies across statutes," but the canon "is strongest when an interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme."89 Two overlapping statutes may be given effect so long as there is no "positive repugnance" between them.90

A converse of the rule that courts should not read statutory language as surplusage is that, as discussed below, courts should not add language that Congress has not included

You’re shooting blanks. Go read Scalia’s break down on the Heller ruling and look for phrases related to prefatory and operative clauses