President Biden Would Ban all Semi-Automatic firearms

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yeah it's funny isn't it? You're willing to give the Government all the power they want over you, which is basically slavery.

[biomed1]

Of these Pearls of Wisdom . . .

• #1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
• #3 - Disrespect to others, IN GENERAL, will be considered an item of low tolerance, especially when posting in our coed forums. Follow the Golden Rule and treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. This applies to fellow members as well as staff. We do not require that you have respect for us, but we do require that you treat us respectfully in the public forums. If you feel the need to vent, gripe, or blow off some steam regarding a staff member's action or decision, we ask that you keep it private. Email, RTM, or the PM system would be the appropriate avenue to take in such cases. In cases where you would like to request additional clarity about a staff decision, you are free to pursue an answer in either a public forum or private means of communication. If handled publicly, post your inquiry in a respectful manner.
• #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Regulated? I could go with that. There are some things the average citizen wouldn't benefit from having for instance a bazooka. Small Arms such as shot Guns, Semi Auto Pistols, Revolvers and Rifles are suitable for the Civilian Population for Sport and Self Defense. But let's face it Liberals would like see these weapons removed from the hands of Law Abiding Citizens if they could.

How many VFW halls have a cannon out front?

I'll bet that concrete plug in the muzzle only goes in a few inches. I'll also bet that a group of mechanics and machinists could put most of 'em back in working order in a weekend.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Sorry, but your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment disagrees with the opinons made by SCOTUS and other courts.


.

WA well researched and well ststed post. I won't re-quote the whole thing here. Thank you for that.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before and has been reversed before.

Dread Scot for one, the separate-but-equal ruling and Roe are other examples.

In my heart, I truly believe that the writers of the Bill of Rights had no idea that the few words they put down would require so much interpretation. Their intention was to be explicit and concise. Take the Third Amendment for instance. That is as plainly stated anything. The government may not quarter troops in your home except as provided for by law in time of war. I am sure in my mind that they thought amendments 1,2,4 and 5 would neer need more explanation than the 3rd does today.

Several amendments begin with, "Congress shall make no law. . . . .", but they never thought that the courts could, in effect, make laws that were never voted on.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

How many VFW halls have a cannon out front?

I'll bet that concrete plug in the muzzle only goes in a few inches. I'll also bet that a group of mechanics and machinists could put most of 'em back in working order in a weekend.

I don't know and don't care. It's irrelevant.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

WA well researched and well ststed post. I won't re-quote the whole thing here. Thank you for that.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before and has been reversed before.

Dread Scot for one, the separate-but-equal ruling and Roe are other examples.

In my heart, I truly believe that the writers of the Bill of Rights had no idea that the few words they put down would require so much interpretation. Their intention was to be explicit and concise. Take the Third Amendment for instance. That is as plainly stated anything. The government may not quarter troops in your home except as provided for by law in time of war. I am sure in my mind that they thought amendments 1,2,4 and 5 would neer need more explanation than the 3rd does today.

Several amendments begin with, "Congress shall make no law. . . . .", but they never thought that the courts could, in effect, make laws that were never voted on.

The people can over rule anything a court decides but we would have to have unity for that and we don't so until WE decide different, yeah, the courts will decide for us.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I don't know and don't care. It's irrelevant.

The above ssid rggerding the nesr-operational canons sitting in front of your local VFW hall.

It is absolutely relevant as it speaks to the " . . .you cn't buy a cannon . ." argument over what the 2nd Amendment allows.

Not only csn you buy a cnnon, but you can also buy a tank and shoot stuff with it!

https://www.drivetanks.com/

https://www.battlefieldvegas.com/sho...ank-one-round/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

WA well researched and well ststed post. I won't re-quote the whole thing here. Thank you for that.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before and has been reversed before.

Dread Scot for one, the separate-but-equal ruling and Roe are other examples.

In my heart, I truly believe that the writers of the Bill of Rights had no idea that the few words they put down would require so much interpretation. Their intention was to be explicit and concise. Take the Third Amendment for instance. That is as plainly stated anything. The government may not quarter troops in your home except as provided for by law in time of war. I am sure in my mind that they thought amendments 1,2,4 and 5 would neer need more explanation than the 3rd does today.

Several amendments begin with, "Congress shall make no law. . . . .", but they never thought that the courts could, in effect, make laws that were never voted on.

Yes, courts upto and including SCOTUS have reversed themselves. But I stand by my statements that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and states have been given the freedom to restrict gun ownership as they see fit, and those restrictions can be challenged in the courts if deemed to be too restrictive.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

The above ssid rggerding the nesr-operational canons sitting in front of your local VFW hall.

It is absolutely relevant as it speaks to the " . . .you cn't buy a cannon . ." argument over what the 2nd Amendment allows.

Not only csn you buy a cnnon, but you can also buy a tank and shoot stuff with it!

https://www.drivetanks.com/

https://www.battlefieldvegas.com/sho...ank-one-round/

Yeah, so what you can buy a Tank Arnold Schwarzenegger has one. But the problem with your post is Tanks and Cannons aren't firearms they are destructive devices and they aren't practical in terms of personal protection.

[ICU 812]

The examples cited are directed at countering the argument that the 2A restrictions are justified because after all citizens can't own an atom bomb", and going on in descending magnitude to include tanks, cannons, machineguns and ending with something like, "so who needs an M-16?".

Another similar line of argument insists that hunting is the only legitimate reason to own a firearm: "You don't need an assault rifle to shoot a deer!". This ignores the actual text of the 2A which makes no reference to sport shooting or hunting. Nor does it establish any need for justification to own or carry a firearm.

The right to own and carry "arms" is not conferred on the public by the Second Amendment. That right was already deemed to exist by the writers of The Bill of Rights. Instead, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from restricting that right in the phrase, " . . .shall not be infringed.".

The first five amendments in The Bill of Rights are concise and explicit in their language. The phrase, " . . shall not . . " has been explicit and absolute as a prohibition in its meaning in every context I have ever encountered in legal documents dealing with the parameters of my life.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

The examples cited are directed at countering the argument that the 2A restrictions are justified because after all citizens can't own an atom bomb", and going on in descending magnitude to include tanks, cannons, machineguns and ending with something like, "so who needs an M-16?".

Another similar line of argument insists that hunting is the only legitimate reason to own a firearm: "You don't need an assault rifle to shoot a deer!". This ignores the actual text of the 2A which makes no reference to sport shooting or hunting. Nor does it establish any need for justification to own or carry a firearm.

The right to own and carry "arms" is not conferred on the public by the Second Amendment. That right was already deemed to exist by the writers of The Bill of Rights. Instead, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from restricting that right in the phrase, " . . .shall not be infringed.".

The first five amendments in The Bill of Rights are concise and explicit in their language. The phrase, " . . shall not . . " has been explicit and absolute as a prohibition in its meaning in every context I have ever encountered in legal documents dealing with the parameters of my life.

All your comments may be 100% correct but that does not change the FACT that states have been allowed to enact gun laws as they see fit and those laws can be challenged in the court by the people who deem them to be unfair. Sometimes those challenges are upheld and sometimes they are dismissed.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

All your comments may be 100% correct but that does not change the FACT that states have been allowed to enact gun laws as they see fit and those laws can be challenged in the court by the people who deem them to be unfair. Sometimes those challenges are upheld and sometimes they are dismissed.

Time will tell. Oregon and Washington state may well fsce a reconning on just what laws they pass. Washington DC has, as has NYC (not fully resolved yet).

The opoerstive statement in your post is, " . . .have been allowed . . .". The Second Amendment does not limit its injunction against infringement to the national government as other amendments do, " . . .Congress shal make no law . . .". It is not qualified in any way as the Third Amendment is, . . except as provided by law in time of war.". It is concise and starkly unequivocal in declaring that citizens shall have the right to own and carry arms without restriction.

Incidentally, the Second Amendment is not focused only on firearms. Bearing edged weapons is protected as well. In the 17Century it was commonly accepted, even expected, that gentleman (or anyone) would wear a massive Bowie style knife in polite company.

We can all go on about the facts as they exist today in the legal arena, but the Second Amendment speaks for itself. It stood alone for something like 130 years (I ran out of fingers) without being hedged around by statute law. That too speaks for the validity of the language.

If that language ever becomes widely deemed to no longer be valid, there are mechanisms set out in the Constitution to alter of even abolish that language. That this has never been done in the past 220 (or so) years goes far in validating the Second Amendment as explicitly enumerating and protecting one of our fundamental rights.

[ICU 812]

Dual Post

[ICU 812]

Correction:"n the 17Century" should of course read " . . .in the 19th Century . . ."

A fat-fingered typo, sorry.

[JRLawrence]

" I'm guessing you've never been to a gun show, have you?"

That is obvious. He has no understading of the gun market!

For many people, buying guns is an investment - it always has been.

I only buy guns that I like, and for fun. Now that I am getting older, I am selling all but the one I carry the most, a 9 mm Walter PPK.

Selling off the guns, proves the investment theory. I just sold a Henry 22 for $700 that I paid $350: a 50% profit for a 4 year investment. That works out to about a 12.5% return per year, not a bad return. I shot it twice at a target range: it is a fun little gun. I think my Hi Standard pistols may bring the highest profit: they are no longer made, but highly valued and appreciated.

I expect to make good returns on my other 30 guns. No one in my family would value the guns, so they might as well be sold. This is a small investiment compaired to some of my friends. One took me into his hidden vault in the basement of his home. Gun racks ran the length of the room, with no free spaces. He showed me several guns that were priced at between $50K and $75K.

One invests in what he knows about, and what one loves. If you don't know about the investment, just shut your mouth because you are showing you are stupid.