Tweet
Why don't you two take it to PMs, or better yet get a room and work it out 
-
-
Originally posted by SSMAN...Welcome to the land of "Fuck it". No body cares, and if they do, no body cares.
Comment
-
How would the ATF know if you're a legal user? Isn't the registration handled on a state basis?Comment
-
It's explained in the article:Originally posted by racrguy View Post
Obviously you would be an idiot to answer yes, but it's up to the seller's discretion. Pretty weak, but still in violation of Second Amendment rights, IMO.Potential gun buyers must state on an ATF form whether they use marijuana at the time of sale. If they answer “yes,” they are denied the purchase, but even if they answer “no,” the seller cannot complete the sale if there is “‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the person is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance,” according to the directive.Comment
-
The reason I find this disturbing is because it is the refusal of allowing a person to purchase firearm, which is a right, due to what is a minor misdemeanor charge in most states. Next, it will illegal to purchase one if you speed, jaywalk, etc. VERY slippery slope.
StevoOriginally posted by SSMAN...Welcome to the land of "Fuck it". No body cares, and if they do, no body cares.Comment
-
-
They sure as hell can (and do) pass any law they want. Any law is up for review by the Executive branch where it can be vetoed if its deemed unacceptable. If by chnce the Executive branch allows it, the Judicial branch can nullify it as unconstitutional or validate it as legal.Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
Its called Checks and Balances - or did you forget your 3rd grade civics education (assuming you got that far).
Comment
-
No, according to the Constitution itself, they can only write laws that are within the constitutional boundaries. Perhaps you can tell me where these other magical powers come from. The Constitution lists 18 powers and then grants the rest to the states and the people respectively. When that fails, the 2nd amendment kicks in to remove a tyrannous government.
Tell me, did the federal government create the states or did the states create the federal government?I wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
Lol, nice strawman. Are you naturally this stupid or do you have to work at it?
Did you even read my post? Let me repeat since your moronic brain has to have a point beaten into it. Laws have to be constitutional but it's determined by the judicial branch (supreme court) as to if a law is constitutional. The legislative branch can make any law it wants, but as to if it stays on the books on its constitutional status or jurisdiction is the job of the judicial branch.
The 2nd amendment has no component to "kick in", revolution isnt a function of the constituion or bill of rights.
I swear, you are just fucking stupid, i cant believe i wasted the time to even reply.Comment
-
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Lincoln
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." -Adams
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Jefferson
Yep, no revolution in the bill of rights. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to protect the citizenry when the government decides to ignore them, as the government they had just fought against had. It's not a straw argument. To believe the federal government has the power to create any power it likes is to believe the states gave up all their power to the federal government, despite what the rest of the Constitution says.
the right to keep and bear arms was considered an essential form of protection not just for home and hearth, but also against government tyranny. It can be understood as yet another of the forms of division of power that the Framers created to protect citizens' liberties. It is commonplace to note that the Framers divided power within the federal government, by apportioning it among three branches, and that the Framers divided government power in general by splitting it between the federal government and the governments of the states. But under the Standard Model approach it is fair to say that the Framers divided power yet another way, by ensuring that the citizenry possessed sufficient military power to offset that of the Federal government. Such a division makes sense in light of such other (p.470)Constitutional language as the Preamble's statement that the authority of the government comes from the people, and the similar statement in the Tenth Amendment.[35] If the federal and state governments are merely agents of the people, it is logical that the people would be reluctant to surrender a monopoly on military power to their servants, for fear that their servants might someday become their masters.[36]
This was certainly the view of commentators throughout the nineteenth century. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.[37]
I wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. -Declaration of Independence
Yep, absolutely no ideas of rising up against a tyrannous government anywhere in our founding documentsI wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
Holy shit.. Is there even a point buried in there? You arent even staying on topic of your own argument. You are like a gumball machine - every post has got something different and its all pointless bullshit. Lmao, you arent even worth the time.Comment
-
Yet you seem to take the time and they all tie in together. The government has a set amount of powers. Anything other than that belongs to the states and people. Should the government ignore that and become tyrannous, it is the right and responsibility of the people to remove that government and put in another.I wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
Gotcha...you're a crackpot. Keep raging against the light brah.Comment
-
Comment