GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2013, 05:18   #1
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Shouldnt anti-gunners be called traitors?

I can understand accidentally going against the Constitution but intentionally going against the Constitution makes you a traitor.
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 05:21   #2
SIG-SOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by umadcuzimstylin View Post
I can understand accidentally going against the Constitution but intentionally going against the Constitution makes you a traitor.
And a POS.
SIG-SOG is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 05:29   #3
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 19,622


Liberals misinterpret the Constitution to fit their agendas.
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:00   #4
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
Liberals misinterpret the Constitution to fit their agendas.
Be honest, conservatives do too.
devildog2067 is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:27   #5
Wolfdad
Senior Member
 
Wolfdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 410
The philosophy of conservatism emphasizes liberty. The philosophy of liberalisim emphasizes control.
Wolfdad is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:37   #6
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 506
Well, to stand against the Constitution only makes your action illegal thus you are a criminal. To be found a traitor, the US would have to be at war. Oh wait, we do have the war on terrorism, the war on poverty, the war on drugs........ I wonder how much a good set of gallows cost.
IhRedrider is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 14:31   #7
N4LP
Senior Member
 
N4LP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfdad View Post
The philosophy of conservatism emphasizes liberty. The philosophy of liberalisim emphasizes control.


You're funny.

The philosophy of conservatism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of conservatism, just as the philosophy of liberalism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of liberalism. It's just different sides of the same coin.
N4LP is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 23:07   #8
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 19,622


Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Be honest, conservatives do too.
True, but they interpret it more closely to the Founders intent.
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 23:16   #9
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,708


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
True, but they interpret it more closely to the Founders intent.
How closely did the founders intend?

If it was a mere suggestion....a guideline or living breathing document, why all the handwringing debate over every phrase?
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:18   #10
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
Liberals misinterpret the Constitution to fit their agendas.
Sophists gonna sophist.
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 05:26   #11
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,430
I agree, but so far the Supreme Court has only found that the constitution gives you a right to own some kind of gun - not specifically anything they are trying to ban right now. Everything else is just our opinion.

Not to mention, we all oppose somebody's constitutional rights on some issue, whether it's the Westboro Baptists Church, the KKK, the Brady Campaign, Occupy ______, or the democrat party.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.
Bren is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:27   #12
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
I agree, but so far the Supreme Court has only found that the constitution gives you a right to own some kind of gun - not specifically anything they are trying to ban right now. Everything else is just our opinion.

Not to mention, we all oppose somebody's constitutional rights on some issue, whether it's the Westboro Baptists Church, the KKK, the Brady Campaign, Occupy ______, or the democrat party.
Thats insane! It doesnt say in the 2nd amendment that you have the right to bear arms at the governments discretion.
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 07:17   #13
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by umadcuzimstylin View Post
Thats insane! It doesnt say in the 2nd amendment that you have the right to bear arms at the governments discretion.
It also doesn't say which arms you have a right to bear or how many or how big the magazine can be or when and where you can bear them. That is all left to court interpretation. Every right in the bill of rights is subject to government discretion - each one has a library full of law defining what the government can and cannot do, except for the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't have enough law to fill a smll notebook.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.
Bren is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 07:21   #14
kensb2
pistol n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Apache, OK
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
It also doesn't say which arms you have a right to bear or how many or how big the magazine can be or when and where you can bear them. That is all left to court interpretation. Every right in the bill of rights is subject to government discretion - each one has a library full of law defining what the government can and cannot do, except for the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't have enough law to fill a smll notebook.
I thought that the 2A provides protection from the FED .gov regarding the RKBA, and basically left it up to the individual states to decide what weapons their citizens have. This makes the most sense to me, since the citizens are supposed to have weapons to defend their state from FED .gov tyranny. Why does the SCOTUS have to make this so complicated?
kensb2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 07:48   #15
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensb2 View Post
I thought that the 2A provides protection from the FED .gov regarding the RKBA, and basically left it up to the individual states to decide what weapons their citizens have. This makes the most sense to me, since the citizens are supposed to have weapons to defend their state from FED .gov tyranny. Why does the SCOTUS have to make this so complicated?
No, the 2nd Amendment says you have a right, enforceable against the federal fgovernment only, to keep and bear arms. The supreme court said, recently, in McDonald, that the 14th Amendment means that the states are also not allowed to violate the 2nd Amendment. Nothing about the 2nd Amendment has ever said "this issue is reserved to the states."

The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," but under the current interpretation of either the commerce clause or the taxing power, the feds have authority to regulate guns, expresssly delegated by the constitution.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.
Bren is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 08:08   #16
SPIN2010
Searching ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: On the move ... again!
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensb2 View Post
I thought that the 2A provides protection from the FED .gov regarding the RKBA, and basically left it up to the individual states to decide what weapons their citizens have. This makes the most sense to me, since the citizens are supposed to have weapons to defend their state from FED .gov tyranny.
You just have to look to NYS to see how effective that theory is. Can anyone really believe the STATE.GOV & FED.GOV are not kissing cousins? Just look to Katrina after action ... that was patriotic by all the LEO/NG/ACTIVE MIL wasn't it? GET FOR REAL!

Last edited by SPIN2010; 02-04-2013 at 08:09..
SPIN2010 is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 07:56   #17
arclight610
Senior Member
 
arclight610's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
It also doesn't say which arms you have a right to bear or how many or how big the magazine can be or when and where you can bear them. That is all left to court interpretation. Every right in the bill of rights is subject to government discretion - each one has a library full of law defining what the government can and cannot do, except for the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't have enough law to fill a smll notebook.
In United States v Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment only protected military style weapons commonly used in the military and militia at that time.
arclight610 is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 13:11   #18
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight610 View Post
In United States v Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment only protected military style weapons commonly used in the military and militia at that time.
Best I recall, they actually ruled that it didn't protect Miller's sawed-off shotgun because it wasn't a military weapon - not exactly the same thing. If they had ruled as you said, we wouldn't be having the assault weapon debate today. That case has never since been held to support a right to possess military small arms, and it is almost 75 years old.

However, Miller, combined with the supreme court cases in the last 7 years, could be a strating point for invalidating an assault weapon ban. Unfortunately, that is very optimistic thinking right now and, if Obama gets to appoint 1 more supreme court justice, it has no chance at all.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.

Last edited by Bren; 02-04-2013 at 13:16..
Bren is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 15:59   #19
Kirishiac
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight610 View Post
In United States v Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment only protected military style weapons commonly used in the military and militia at that time.
yes, I believe they ruled against Miller, because a short barreled shotgun was not used in the military at the time.
Kirishiac is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 08:02   #20
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
It also doesn't say which arms you have a right to bear or how many or how big the magazine can be or when and where you can bear them. That is all left to court interpretation. Every right in the bill of rights is subject to government discretion - each one has a library full of law defining what the government can and cannot do, except for the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't have enough law to fill a smll notebook.
Exactly! It is written vague to not have restrictions not for the government to decide how they restrict you. It says you have the right to bear arms which means open carry any gun you want. It plainly says right to bear arms yet the government thinks it say right to bear arms according to your interpretation lulz.

Last edited by umadcuzimstylin; 02-04-2013 at 08:23..
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 20:30   #21
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by umadcuzimstylin View Post
Thats insane! It doesnt say in the 2nd amendment that you have the right to bear arms at the governments discretion.
Exactly. This is why I want to be able to own an RPG, a Stinger Missle, and some ICBMs. SHouldn't I be able to own Anthrax and perhaps carry some chemical weapons around with me? The 2nd Amendment says so.
ChiTownPicaro is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 20:38   #22
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPicaro View Post
Exactly. This is why I want to be able to own an RPG, a Stinger Missle, and some ICBMs. SHouldn't I be able to own Anthrax and perhaps carry some chemical weapons around with me? The 2nd Amendment says so.
Difference between arms and heavy weaponry. Cannons were more legal back then but were subject to restrictions that arms weren't.
__________________
Fear the government that fears your guns.
GAFinch is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 20:53   #23
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
Difference between arms and heavy weaponry. Cannons were more legal back then but were subject to restrictions that arms weren't.
Cannons were returned to communities, not individuals after the Revolution.

FWIW
countrygun is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 18:13   #24
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
Difference between arms and heavy weaponry. Cannons were more legal back then but were subject to restrictions that arms weren't.
So what laws were cannons governed by? And arms?
ChiTownPicaro is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 20:53   #25
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,708


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPicaro View Post
Exactly. This is why I want to be able to own an RPG, a Stinger Missle, and some ICBMs. SHouldn't I be able to own Anthrax and perhaps carry some chemical weapons around with me? The 2nd Amendment says so.
Foolish assertion.

Arms common to the soldiers of the time. Yes, you should be able to own an RPG. Most certainly. Whatever is needed to sufficiently arm a militia. Do you not think that farmers had cannons in their barns?
certifiedfunds is offline  
Closed Thread

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

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:03.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,066
347 Members
719 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42