Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[azelkhntr]

A nice couple forced to exercise their 2A Rights just the other day. This is one reason why we have the 2A and why it'll never be infringed.

 

[LWC55]

It's not so hard to understand the second amendment, what is it about "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? You should save yourself a lot of time and anguish and turn in your guns now and beat the rush.

It means the government's right to have a militia shall not be infringed. Everybody should see that....

 

[shootbrownelk]

It was more respect for the presidential nomination. The divisiveness between the two parties has made it a beer drinking college soiree of horse manure simply to malign an American for the political agendas of an opposing party.

Come to think of it I think Ginsburg only had six no votes or something close to that...

Those six votes were all she was awake for.

 

[noharleyyet]

You and wllm post at about the same rate, he just uses more words

Yes, wllm is one of my favorite authors. ; )

 

[LWC55]

Yes, wllm is one of my favorite authors. ; )

I agree. Both of y'all have me going to my dictionary way more than needed. Y'all havin a fancy word contest?

 

[MTLabrador]

2020 really feels like one long Tarantino movie.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's not so hard to understand the second amendment, what is it about "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? You should save yourself a lot of time and anguish and turn in your guns now and beat the rush.

Please read some of the posts on this very point above. You are missing the "WHAT", shall not infringed part of the discussion and ignoring that "not be infringed" has never been a simple legal absolute for any of our Bill of Rights. Not time to turn in our guns but maybe time to actually learn about this right we are so committed to.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree. Both of y'all have me going to my dictionary way more than needed. Y'all havin a fancy word contest?

Indeed, hence the irritation at the hoi polloi using jejune language to describe marginalized groups.

"People get offended so easily" ... but god forbid you call a magazine a clip.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It means the government's right to have a militia shall not be infringed. Everybody should see that....

That was actually a huge issue in the day as the 13 sovreign governments considered agreeing to surrender independence in favor of becoming a Union. In fact, a much bigger deal than a personal right (which likely was assumed as a reality of rural life at the time).

 

[VikingsGuy]

"People get offended so easily" ... but god forbid you call a magazine a clip.

But we are very tolerant of those who mix up caliber and cartridge - more tolerant than we should be

 

[Deleted member 28227]

But we are very tolerant of those who mix up caliber and cartridge - more tolerant than we should be

... and those who spot and stock

 

[MTLabrador]

... and those who spot and stock

Now that one is like nails on a chalkboard.

 

[VikingsGuy]

... stock

who doesn't like a hearty wild game soup?

 

[LWC55]

That was actually a huge issue in the day as the 13 sovreign governments considered agreeing to surrender independence in favor of becoming a Union. In fact, a much bigger deal than a personal right (which likely was assumed as a reality of rural life at the time).

Whichever way you look at it....the purpose of the 2A was for the people (be it in the form of individuals or groups of individuals) to have the right to be armed to stand up against the possibility of an overreaching central government. Can we agree on that?

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Whichever way you look at it....the purpose of the 2A was for the people (be it in the form of individuals or groups of individuals) to have the right to be armed to stand up against the possibility of an overreaching central government. Can we agree on that?

I can agree that the goal was to have a group of "well regulated" people be armed for that purpose. But then you also need to define "armed" too. And once you do that, you need to explain why I can't own a nuclear missile if I want. You know, because I'm pretty sure the "overreaching central government" already has one or two. So if the citizens can't have the same "arms" as the overreaching central government, then the argument is moot on the same grounds the current lawsuit is now claiming the ACA is moot - because the "individual mandate" was repealed (i.e., I can't own a nuclear missile)

 

[Trial153]

Even Scalia in Heller acknowledged that there are limits. The question becomes do we look to and work with that premise to establish a what could be smarter, less intrusive and more effective laws within some context of those limits. Or do abstatantly stand on the sidelines while others do it for us.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Even Scalia in Heller acknowledged that there are limits. The question becomes do we look to and work with that premise to establish a what could be smarter, less intrusive and more effective laws within some context of those limits. Or do abstatantly stand on the sidelines while others do it for us.

I don't get the standing on the sidelines reference. Do you mean to persuade the SC to interpret the law a certain way?

 

[LWC55]

Even Scalia in Heller acknowledged that there are limits. The question becomes do we look to and work with that premise to establish a what could be smarter, less intrusive and more effective laws within some context of those limits. Or do abstatantly stand on the sidelines while others do it for us.

There are already limits! We need to fight against any further limits. Giving in to more limitations will not help us keep the 2A longer. If you are for 2A you should fight all future limitations. Those who fight against 2A have nothing to provide us. They are not willing to "compromise". They want to do away with 2A and will do so a little at a time....so long as we let them.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There are already limits! We need to fight against any further limits. Giving in to more limitations will not help us keep the 2A longer. If you are for 2A you should fight all future limitations. Those who fight against 2A have nothing to provide us. They are not willing to "compromise". They want to do away with 2A and will do so a little at a time....so long as we let them.

What in your mind is a limit? EG, I can own and operate a car in all 50 states + a pile of other countries with a US driver's license issued by my home state. For the most part anyone can get one, though you can lose the right if your an idiot... ie bunch of DUIs.

Also there isn't a constitutional right to drive, I can see that one both ways, what are your thoughts?



[Not meant to be argumentative]

 

[BigHornRam]

Even Scalia in Heller acknowledged that there are limits. The question becomes do we look to and work with that premise to establish a what could be smarter, less intrusive and more effective laws within some context of those limits. Or do abstatantly stand on the sidelines while others do it for us.

In wrestling we had a name for guys like you.


Fish.