Then don’t engage me. You have a severe lack of ability to comprehend what you read…or write.
Here’s what you wrote earlier, punk:
Go fuck yourself!
1 Like
If that’s all you got out of everything I’ve written and all you can do is offer a watered down loophole version of something that wouldn’t be an issue except for an existing unjust 2A Infringement then you have already folded. Go puff your feathers and strut some more.
Isn’t there anyone here that can offer some serious debate on what 2A sanctuaries mean in relation to already existing infringements like the NFA and GCA?
1 Like
I understand what you are saying. The Constitution reserves to the people the right to possess the arms used by an infantryman, and reserves the right to take these arms into combat to the people.
So why are assault weapon bans constitutional? How is the 1986 automatic weapon restriction constitutional? How is the NFA constitutional?
A fireteam consists of four men, two with selective fire M4 Carbines (safe semi burst, no full auto), one with a grenade launcher on his carbine, and one machine gunner with an M249.
If the purpose of keeping arms is so that the average American man can instantly serve in the infantry, shouldn’t fully automatic M249 Machine Guns and selective fire M4 Carbines be legal for citizens to keep? Otherwise how will the militia be well-regulated?
Is that what you are getting at?
2 Likes
You are confusing laws and rights. Laws do not supersede rights.
The government doesn’t give us rights.
The constitution doesn’t GIVE us rights.
God or Natural Law (if you are atheist) gives us rights.
The constitution enumerates those rights.
Government is there to make sure that the rights the Constitution enumerates are not infringed.
3 Likes
They literally aren’t. The federal government has repeatedly, maliciously, and illegally violated the Second Amendment. The feds are forcing the American people to abide by blatantly criminal regulations at the tip of a bayonet.
They need to be disarmed, detained, and tried like the common criminals they are.
2 Likes
Yes. I know that. Those questions were rhetorical to frame the discussion that @Zooligan was getting frustrated about.
1 Like
If you hadn’t noticed, those arguments have been made and have been lost.
Sorry, but you have NO rights that you can’t defend…
“They” are not common criminals, they are our duly elected representatives. It’s oversimplifications like that which keep real progress from being made. Heck, you could become one of “they” if you so desired. Just run for office.
So, back to my original question… again…
Are these supposed 2A sanctuaries willing to defend all citizens in their jurisdictions from all 2A infringements, or just the ones they aren’t intimidated by? And are they willing to state that position?
If not, well, I’m afraid all they are trying to do is make a statement and then they’ll roll over like we all already have to prior arms legislation.
We won’t know that until the shit hits the fan. You are getting wrapped around the axle over what might happen in the future. As we’ve seen from the left, many of these sanctuary cities and counties that harbor illegal aliens are paying their legal fees to avoid deportation and keep them out of jail. It stands to reason that 2A sanctuary counties will do the same for American citizens, but we aren’t there yet.
4 Likes
I didn’t elect anyone at the BATFE. They all took the same oath that you take when you enlist in the military. They shouldn’t be enforcing unconstitutional laws.
1 Like
Blah, Blah, Blah.
The fact remains that the ultimate power lays in our hands.
You’re right, they are uncommon criminals that infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights daily in violation of their oaths.
When those laws are struck down in the courts as unconstitutional, I’m certain BATFE will no longer enforce them. We were very close to having suppressors removed from NFA classification until that chucklehead shot up the Vegas strip with his bump-stock equipped AR. That’s the kind of unstable person that should not have the opportunity to fuck up real political progress in the claw-back of our rights.
Then wave your wand and make it change. Oops. Can’t. Know why? Because in a democracy the majority rules, and we haven’t yet convinced the majority.
RE: Welcome to the forum rj. Yes, and the Supreme Court changes all the time.
Thank you for the welcome note…
Not to pick nits…
The members of the Supreme Court interpret existing law.
So as new members are added as other retire or pass on, the law does not change.
The only way laws can change is through the Congressional process.
Now I believe your perspective has merit because in most recent years the members of the court have
acted more like judicial activists then jurists.
1 Like
Correct, law doesn’t change, interpretation does.
Montecresto,
I can’t find the other thread to which you replied.
RE: The right of self defense.
I really don’t think it matters if you believe in God or not or if you do,
you believe that the right of self defense is a God given right.
The fact of the matter is that every living thing employs self defense mechanisms.
The fact that the Constitution enumerates and validates the methodology of self defense, via the second amendment, is sufficient justification to counter those that would choose to eliminate that right via executive fiat. Like the new Gov. of Virginia is proposing.
In fact I think his efforts might open the door to legalizing full auto weapons.
1 Like
So because they support gun ownership they are “rednecks”? You resort to name calling because you disagree with them and have no better argument.
2 Likes
I’m not sure that’s 100% accurate. Courts can rule a law unconstitutional, essentially nullifying it. Nothing needs to be done by congress unless they want to rework that law to pass constitutional muster. That’s the judicial branch check on the legislative branch.
What I am getting at is this - Will these 2A “sanctuaries” that are popping up be true sanctuaries for the 2A as written? Will the powers declaring these sanctuaries go to the mat to protect the right ignoring the infringements that have already been place upon it by various laws like the NFA and GCA, or are they only interested in saying they will protect our already handicapped 2A rights and then maybe not even being ale to pull that off?
I wish it were the former, but I’m guessing so little thought has actually gone into the issue that it will be the latter.