Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss After nearly 10 years of ignoring it, SCOTUS accepts 2nd Amendment case! at the General Forum; Originally Posted by saltwn Exactly. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. not the right to drive a ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:06 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,505
Thanks: 1,405
Thanked 1,538 Times in 953 Posts
Default Re: After nearly 10 years of ignoring it, SCOTUS accepts 2nd Amendment case!

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Exactly. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. not the right to drive a tank or own a howitzer.
1.It is legal to own a tank.

2.A tank is a vehicle not a weapon.

3.Arms are a protected constitutional right. Driving a vehicle on a public road is a state granted privileged.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2019, 05:27 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,634
Thanks: 6,805
Thanked 4,580 Times in 2,610 Posts
Default Re: After nearly 10 years of ignoring it, SCOTUS accepts 2nd Amendment case!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
The sole purpose of SCOTUS is supposed to be interpret the Constitutionality of the issue put before it. We already have two lawmaking branches of government.

I was bothered by the ruling in the case you mentioned. The Obama administration had alleged that the fee, for want of a better word, was a fine, not a tax. SCOTUS said otherwise to not upset the apple cart.
Correct. And in the Obamacare case, the court CHANGED what was put before it in order to find it Constitutional. THAT is what I am talking about. In the bill passed by congress, the fine or fee was never put into context as a tax. Roberts suggested the change in order to pass Constitutional muster. That is NOT the job of the court as they effectively became part of the legislature at that point.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2019, 05:34 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,634
Thanks: 6,805
Thanked 4,580 Times in 2,610 Posts
Default Re: After nearly 10 years of ignoring it, SCOTUS accepts 2nd Amendment case!

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Exactly. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. not the right to drive a tank or own a howitzer.
And once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. And once again, for those that are either unable or unwilling to retain information posted in this forum, I will post something that Lurch posted a while back:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Under the standard terms used at the time the 2nd amendment was being written your anti-personnel mines would have been "ordnance" not "arms". Both of these fell under the broader category "munitions", although all three of those terms are used interchangeably today. So, under the 2nd things like nukes anti-personnel mines and bazookas are not "arms". This distinction was codified pretty well, albeit accidentally and a little over broadly, in the 1934 national firearms act which restricted, but didn't outlaw, possession of explosives, automatic weapons, rifles over 50 caliber, etc.
Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/new...-scheme-4.html

So once again, you are projecting a non sequitur into the discussion most likely due to ignorance.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:40 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,255
Thanks: 539
Thanked 6,495 Times in 4,675 Posts
Default Re: After nearly 10 years of ignoring it, SCOTUS accepts 2nd Amendment case!

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Exactly. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. not the right to drive a tank or own a howitzer.
You appear to say that as if you believe those words will scare the hell out of some bad guy intent on creating a blood bath. He will not be deterred in his goal of acquiring what he wants, even if a thousand laws stand in his way.

That is something anti-gun people will never absorb, because their goal is

COMPLETE GUN CONFISCATION, and no lie.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
2nd, accepts, after, amendment, case, ignoring, nearly, scotus, years

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0