Finally an Issue I can march the streets with the Tea baggers side by side.

[Cadsuane]

Since I'm the only real Tea Party member on these forums, I'll give our opinion on the matter.

The 10th amendment talks about laws that are NOT in the constitution. Guns ARE in the constitution. Therefore this does not fall under 10th.

We like guns, and want more of em.

If you are trolling, then I got trolled.

You're also a born again basket case, and no one cares about your opinion

To your credit though I think you "got" the thread schtick when alot of other morons didn't

[Sylvrdragon]

How cute.

Is that the meme Gun rights advocates are using these days? because the same can be said about you.

lol, what?

Again, where did I claim to be a Gun rights advocate?

Let me try this one more time. I don't care what you're arguing about. I don't care about politics and I don't know shit about any of it. All I care about is how you state it and how you come to your conclusions.

My goal is to make sure that the people who rant and preach about a subject are doing so in a rational manner. The ONLY reason I've posted anything at all in this thread is because of the wording of your poll.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a presumptuous douchebag NOT because of your stance on gun control or whatever the hell you're arguing about here, but because of how you are presenting your stance and how you are responding to people who post in this thread.

I'm almost certainly wasting my time though, resulting in a successful troll- if that was indeed your purpose.

[Rhinox]

Since I'm the only real Tea Party member on these forums, I'll give our opinion on the matter.

The 10th amendment talks about laws that are NOT in the constitution. Guns ARE in the constitution. Therefore this does not fall under 10th.

We like guns, and want more of em.

If you are trolling, then I got trolled.

But Health care is in the Constitution.

[Melchiah]

Yeah, give us an example of how gun rights and in particular, an armed populace, have been an active element of the political process so much so that it has appreciably altered legislature just by the threat of armed revolt.

Oh, that's right! Western states that have gun rights are virtually indistinguishable on the authoritarian/liberal spectrum from those that don't have them! In fact the biggest difference between them is the rate of violent crime. So you're full of shit!

Seriously, dumbest canned argument ever, and the world would be better off without Locke and his horse shit (though it's doubtful most gun rights advocates people even know who Locke was). People want to be able to defend their home, so they want guns. Better question: Why is there an everpresent threat against households that people feel that they need firearms to defend themselves? Eliminate that threat, no one will give a shit about guns. Well, everyone except emasculated gun enthusiasts anyway.

Where the fuck are you from, anyway? Do you happen to live in upper-middle class suburbia where the biggest danger you've ever had to be aware of was jaywalking?

You don't know shit for shit about me. My family owns property two counties south from where the rest of us live, in a rural area that's still in the 1950's American Stone Age. One of the two houses we own down there is REPEATEDLY B&E'd, and the local law enforcement does the sum total of jack squack about it. In fact, right now, the front door is hanging wide open from the last time they kicked it in; pops, the brother and I just don't have the time to keep making 2 hour trips down there to secure the place. Do you really think it's reasonable that we should be denied the ability to own and carry weapons when at any time we visit our own property there might be a burglar prowling the place or a drug addict squatting on the property? The place has been broken into over 20 times in ten years. This is NOT an insignificant number. I'm glad for you and your suburbia paradise, sounds like a nice place. I live in the rest of the world though, so you can shitcan your idealistic horseshit.

As for legislation: The reason you don't see seriously fucked up bullshit legislation is because at this point, most of armed America still won't stand for an overtly tyrannical administration. This is the implied threat at work.

Some of you people need to ditch the John Lennon Specials.

@Rhinox: I gave my feelings on that in Kuya's thread. Short and sweet version: Absolutely not, unless the investigating authority is held to a stringent, high burden of proof, and only in situations where arrest is impossible or not feasible. I still don't like the idea of convictions and sentences without a trial though, so I suppose my feelings are mixed.

[Egon]

But Health care is in the Constitution.

Didn't know I was for it.



On a related matter, I also though trolls got banned?

[Rhinox]

lol, what?

Again, where did I claim to be a Gun rights advocate?

Let me try this one more time. I don't care what you're arguing about. I don't care about politics and I don't know shit about any of it. All I care about is how you state it and how you come to your conclusions.

My goal is to make sure that the people who rant and preach about a subject are doing so in a rational manner. The ONLY reason I've posted anything at all in this thread is because of the wording of your poll.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a presumptuous douchebag NOT because of your stance on gun control or whatever the hell you're arguing about here, but because of how you are presenting your stance and how you are responding to people who post in this thread.

I'm almost certainly wasting my time though, resulting in a successful troll- if that was indeed your purpose.

Oh in other words you can see both sides of this issue?

[Demosthenes11]

Oh in other words you can see both sides of this issue?

stop making this a "should guns be legal/illegal" argument. It's not. Banning guns is unconstitutional.

[Rhinox]

Didn't know I was for it.



On a related matter, I also though trolls got banned?

Backseat modding? that is a bannable offense good sir.

[*Shinzon*]

constitution needs to be amended, otherwise a flat out ban on firearms will never be legal.

Comparing this to anything is retarded. The NY law breaks the supreme laws of the land. This isn't an argument of why guns should be legal or why not, and not whether the amendment is good or bad. The argument is: should local/state governments be able to supersede the US constitution? The answer must always be no or else there is no law.

Exactly. Was looking to see if anyone would mention that. If a state creates a law that directly conflicts with laws in the constitution, the constitution automatically is superior.

[Acturus]

Let me make sure I understand the issue here, and keep in mind that I've not answered the poll, nor have I bothered to read the first 60-odd replies. I'm just going off of the OP here:

The SCOTUS decided to overturn a ban on handguns in Chicago. As I read it, they were citing their ability to do so via interpretation of and under the 2nd Amendment.

And the problem with that is that this violates the 10th Amendment, which (roughly) states that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government should then remain with the states and/or the people.

But, if the SCOTUS references the 2nd Amendment in their decision, how exactly does this violate the 10th amendment?

[Rhinox]

stop making this a "should guns be legal/illegal" argument. It's not. Banning guns is unconstitutional.

lol


To be more specific


LOL

Whats funny is I wouldn't be oppossed to homeowners being allowed to own firearms but these guys jerk off to the wild west fantasies and the dream of being able to wear a gun on their hip everywhere. Even 10 year old soccer league games.

[Cadsuane]

Where the fuck are you from, anyway? Do you happen to live in upper-middle class suburbia where the biggest danger you've ever had to be aware of was jaywalking?

You don't know shit for shit about me. My family owns property two counties south from where the rest of us live, in a rural area that's still in the 1950's American Stone Age. One of the two houses we own down there is REPEATEDLY B&E'd, and the local law enforcement does the sum total of jack squack about it. In fact, right now, the front door is hanging wide open from the last time they kicked it in; pops, the brother and I just don't have the time to keep making 2 hour trips down there to secure the place. Do you really think it's reasonable that we should be denied the ability to own and carry weapons when at any time we visit our own property there might be a burglar prowling the place or a drug addict squatting on the property? The place has been broken into over 20 times in ten years. This is NOT an insignificant number. I'm glad for you and your suburbia paradise, sounds like a nice place. I live in the rest of the world though, so you can shitcan your idealistic horseshit.

Alright, so you live in a place that is sufficiently threatened that you require firearms to defend your property and safety (allegedly). If your hard motherfucker rural place of residence wasn't ringed by junkies and criminals, would you then require firearms? Oh wait...

As for legislation: The reason you don't see seriously fucked up bullshit legislation is because at this point, most of armed America still won't stand for an overtly tyrannical administration. This is the implied threat at work.

Apparently yes you would, so you could keep the government in check! I've already presented an argument to the contrary, so you beg the question and convince me that you're a delusional halfwit whose best response is to call me a hippy. The only politics that are affected by gun rights are politics regarding gun rights. It's really sad that anyone would think their personal gun collection makes them any less insignificant an element of society.

[Demosthenes11]

lol


To be more specific


LOL

wonderful, that has nothing to do with the thread lol

[Rhinox]

Let me make sure I understand the issue here, and keep in mind that I've not answered the poll, nor have I bothered to read the first 60-odd replies. I'm just going off of the OP here:

The SCOTUS decided to overturn a ban on handguns in Chicago. As I read it, they were citing their ability to do so via interpretation of and under the 2nd Amendment.

And the problem with that is that this violates the 10th Amendment, which (roughly) states that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government should then remain with the states and/or the people.

But, if the SCOTUS references the 2nd Amendment in their decision, how exactly does this violate the 10th amendment?

thats your problem right there.

I was obviously spitting out generalities similarly to how Tea baggers were referencing Health care being against the tenth amendment when one can argue that Health care is in the constitution.

[Takedown3]

I didn't say it was good or bad you fucking troglodyte. Throw better bait next time.



Yeah, well. That and public opinion. And not all transfer payments, just those that pertain to public healthcare equalization.

hey dickwad i was talking to the OP i live in ontario

[Gregorio]

So militia in this sentence is just a throw away word right? They just tossed in Militia similar to how Rudy Gulliani randomly mentions 9/11

It couldn't be that the second amendment was based on the Pennsylvania constitution which goes into further detail. It grants the right to bear arms with the understanding that the US shouldn't have a standing army in a time of peace.

But you know were always getting invading and stuff Red Dawn style on an almost daily basis.

Sorry for the delay, lost my internets for a while. Also, inc wall of text.

First, is it entirely inconceivable that the country could ever be invaded? Or that our elected officials can ever go "Dear Leader" on us? While I'd love to subscribe to the idea that every other country in the world loves the hell outa the US and our leaders are above taking advantage of us, I just can't. Now would ordinary citizens realistically stand a chance vs an army that could overpower the US Army, probably not. But those guys in Iraq are doing a decent job at making the US look like idiots.

Next...You are correct that the founding fathers hated the idea of a standing army, but while Pennsylvania's constitution was actually the first to use the phrase "the right to bear arms", it is not what it was based on. Pennsylvania did not even have a state militia. You are also correct in saying that Pennsylvania's constitution goes into further detail. It actually referred to the people's right to bear arms "for the defense of themselves". Anyway, the right was not based on Pennsylvania law, it inherited from England, which upheld a law in it's Bill of Rights that was already centuries old.

If you want to discuss what it was based on, it's easy to find drafts of the amendment which make it easier to see what the founding fathers actually meant. Thomas Jefferson proposed that Virginia's state constitution should stipulate "No freeman should be debarred the use of arms." James Madison proposed to the First Congress the amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights...his first draft drew from his own state's constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In his notes for the speech in which he urged Congress to recommend constitutional amendments he stated that "They related 1st to private rights". He also referred to this in The Federalist papers. He actually wanted this right in the Constitution itself in "Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4", which is directly after the guarantee of the writ of habeas corpus. There are many more examples.

The debate about the preamble usually comes down to a collective right of "the people" vs a private right. Since the Bill of Rights mentions "the people" multiple times and they all refer to individual rights, I believe it's safe to assume that they meant this as an individual right as well.

[Rhinox]

wonderful, that has nothing to do with the thread lol

Dear stupid

I not against the second amendment completely


With regards
Rhinox

[Gethsemane]

Rhinox, what chance do the teabaggers have against Independents, Democrats, and Republicans? Let's be real here. All 3 of the parties dislike the stupidity that they all have so proudly shown on all the unedited footage of the rallies. 95% of the people have no formal college education and it's the 5% of assholes that do have a college education that are just taking advantage of people that are nothing but sheep and following anything that feeds them bullshit.

I say I respect Teabaggers for sticking to their beliefs but what if those beliefs go against 90% of the majority of the people in this country? Teabaggers can rant and whine about everything in the World but soon people are going to stop listening to the incessant and annoying bitching.

One word that describe Teabaggers: Vuvuzela.

Also don't think it was even put into the first post, not that anyone doesn't know what the second amendment says but:

2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Demosthenes11]

Dear stupid

I not against the second amendment completely


With regards
Rhinox

you are all over the place right now. your belief or lack thereof in the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the thread

edit: to dude above me: lol

[antihero]

How many other people in the thread actually are licensed to concealed carry and do so? It seems to me that the majority of you are conservative cocksuckers who have no idea what they're talking about