The NRA Stays On That BullSh!t... NEW AD Pulls Obama's Kids Into 'Discussion'
Options
Comments
-
how states cutting funding to schools but want them to hire armed guards, smh @ the NRA pitching for the gun manufactures to get government contracts to provide the weapons for the gaurds
They stay winning -
umm now that guns are killing small ? children
They need to save face and get over it
Because no ones going to simply stop talking about it
UNLESS
Carmelo pulls an OJ out here -
I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great. -
I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously. -
I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously.
Then the commerce clause is null and void simply because the purpose of the second amendment is to assure and insure people against tyranny of government. If certain members of government are allowed certain styles of weaponry particularly advanced weaponry it makes the people subjects and not the masters of government as it is supposed to be. Thats pretty simple cut and dry. In a free society people are not barred from the ability to defend themselves. Allegedly, this is a free society...but the promises of its doctrine has yet ever be carried out in full. -
You can't "void" a constitutional power lol. You can only find a way around it, which already exists. They can't ban all guns because of the 2nd Amendment but they can ban certain types via the commerce clause. The constitution doesn't guarantee you any specific type of weapon.
If the American citizen is a subject...it damn sure aint because of gun access. -
Yup... I'm backing down from the big tough internet guy that can't understand sarcasm...
so now I'm an internet tough guy? hahaBTW see that you served... respects your service... disagrees with your points...
For the record... the same politicians (republicans, beholden to the NRA) that fought tooth and nail to have poor and old people jump through hoops (background checks) to be legally registered to vote, now are opposed to people going thru background checks to purchase guns. To me it's common sense... I got no problem getting a background check to a weapon... and I also don't feel the need to have an AK or and AR... but that's just me...
As for the ad, to which this thread was originally about... The ? is over the line... I've never once seen any other children of any sitting President put front and center in a political discussion. But since this President is Black, all the accepted rules of Political decorum go out the window. That's the ? . Again. You're entitled to your opinion on guns and I can respect that but I can't back the garbage that the NRA is selling on this.
the bolded is ? tho
cause who in the US can buy a firearm without registering it?
as far as background checks..........the only time those are not done is if it is a private sale, or a buyer already has a concealed weapon permit (CWP)
CWP require fingerprinting and background checks
and that's the misinformation that's being spread.............mofos are just ready to pass laws to buy votes instead of actually working towards real solutions that protect people
requiring someone to provide ID to vote makes sense since you are required to register to vote anyway........I don't see how that is an issue -
Obama is huffing & puffing...aint ? he can do. No gun control law will pass the House, at least not one of any merit and his executive orders are mere suggestions of legislation or a directive to do what is already in his power to do.
-
You can't "void" a constitutional power lol. You can only find a way around it, which already exists. They can't ban all guns because of the 2nd Amendment but they can ban certain types via the commerce clause. The constitution doesn't guarantee you any specific type of weapon.
If the American citizen is a subject...it damn sure aint because of gun access.
You cant void a constitutional power exactly...so Congress can make no law abridging or infringing upon the constitutional rights of the people. Bans on certain types of firearms = infringing. #Constitituion101
Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 3The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress."
-
.You can't "void" a constitutional power lol. You can only find a way around it, which already exists. They can't ban all guns because of the 2nd Amendment but they can ban certain types via the commerce clause. The constitution doesn't guarantee you any specific type of weapon.
If the American citizen is a subject...it damn sure aint because of gun access.
You cant void a constitutional power exactly...so Congress can make no law abridging or infringing upon the constitutional rights of the people. Bans on certain types of firearms = infringing. #Constitituion101
Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 3The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress."
You don't have a right to any specific type of weapon. There's still a wide array of legal weapons. -
I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously.
just seen this..........
please explain how the Commerce Clause is applicable -
.blakfyahking wrote: »I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously.
just seen this..........
please explain how the Commerce Clause is applicable
Are guns sold across state lines? Yes they are, commerce clause, period. -
.You can't "void" a constitutional power lol. You can only find a way around it, which already exists. They can't ban all guns because of the 2nd Amendment but they can ban certain types via the commerce clause. The constitution doesn't guarantee you any specific type of weapon.
If the American citizen is a subject...it damn sure aint because of gun access.
You cant void a constitutional power exactly...so Congress can make no law abridging or infringing upon the constitutional rights of the people. Bans on certain types of firearms = infringing. #Constitituion101
Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 3The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress."
You don't have a right to any specific type of weapon. There's still a wide array of legal weapons.
a·bridge
/əˈbrij/
Verb
Shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
Curtail (rights or privileges).
14th Amendment
Section1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Thats pretty simple...if a certain populous of the US are allowed armed security guards with assault weapons clearance that is a clear cut violation of the equal rights clause.... -
That doesn't void the commerce clause just because it has more words B. It says "No state shall..." The Federal Government is not a state bro.
-
.blakfyahking wrote: »I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously.
just seen this..........
please explain how the Commerce Clause is applicable
Are guns sold across state lines? Yes they are, commerce clause, period.
that's a reach
cause doing commerce across state lines has little to do with states still being able to regulate firearms on their own
most gun control laws are at the state level anyways, so I'm not seeing where you are going with that -
That doesn't void the commerce clause just because it has more words B. It says "No state shall..." The Federal Government is not a state bro.
but the supremacy clause states that Federal Law trumps state law except on single issues where jurisdiction is concurrent
-
blakfyahking wrote: »
.blakfyahking wrote: »I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously.
just seen this..........
please explain how the Commerce Clause is applicable
Are guns sold across state lines? Yes they are, commerce clause, period.
that's a reach
cause doing commerce across state lines has little to do with states still being able to regulate firearms on their own
most gun control laws are at the state level anyways, so I'm not seeing where you are going with that
.
I'm not talking about individual states. Anything they do will probably be governed under the 10th Amendment. This topic is about Obama, not anybody's governor. -
That doesn't void the commerce clause just because it has more words B. It says "No state shall..." The Federal Government is not a state bro.
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.
this clearly bars any federal or local legislature from enacting any "law" that violates this concept.
barring certain types of arms firearm or otherwise is a clear violation of said right. I dont see an "unless" clause at the end of this amendment, do you?
-
blakfyahking wrote: »
.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding." -
Here is a link to Supreme Court cases up to 1998 dealing witht he second amendment.
THis does not include the most recent two including the 2010 Supreme Court case
http://www.saf.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html -
This is going in circles. The constitution is what it is and says what it says. I'm just gonna let the ? who get paid to do this do it lol. I got class in the morning.
Good ? though fellas. Fun debate. -
blakfyahking wrote: »the NRA presents a legitimate point that sheep will refuse to acknowledge because of their emotional bias
most of the people preaching gun control are naturally afraid of firearms and tend to lack basic knowledge
if you believe there is a such thing as an "assault weapon", then you are one of the uninformed voters who really have no business speaking on gun control
it's fair to question why the average citizen is not able to have a degree of protection similar to politicians that work for us...............being a political figure doesn't entitle you to be treated like royalty
so wait?
the average American citizen is walking around with top secret classified information that can put National Security at risk if fallen into the wrong hands? And their immediate family can be used to attain such information???
seriously anyone that even question why certain members of government and their family are afforded a level of security more than the average citizen
-
And looks like immigration reform takes a back seat again.
-
I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously.
Then the commerce clause is null and void simply because the purpose of the second amendment is to assure and insure people against tyranny of government. If certain members of government are allowed certain styles of weaponry particularly advanced weaponry it makes the people subjects and not the masters of government as it is supposed to be. Thats pretty simple cut and dry. In a free society people are not barred from the ability to defend themselves. Allegedly, this is a free society...but the promises of its doctrine has yet ever be carried out in full.
The government also has drones and nukes
So you saying that regular folks should have drones and nukes?
-
Shizlansky wrote: »I'd just like to know which provision in the Constitution allows COngress or the Chief of State power to "ban" particular types of firearms.
I'd also like to know if this ban on assault weapons and assault style weapons will be extended to police and military personnel.
If not, then we must ask ourselves if government is given more clearance than the people is supposedly serves...then are we living in a republic or a thinly veiled serfdom?
If anyone can provide the answers to any of these...that'd be great.
Its called the Commerce Clause and no it won't apply to the military or the police...obviously.
Then the commerce clause is null and void simply because the purpose of the second amendment is to assure and insure people against tyranny of government. If certain members of government are allowed certain styles of weaponry particularly advanced weaponry it makes the people subjects and not the masters of government as it is supposed to be. Thats pretty simple cut and dry. In a free society people are not barred from the ability to defend themselves. Allegedly, this is a free society...but the promises of its doctrine has yet ever be carried out in full.
The government also has drones and nukes
So you saying that regular folks should have drones and nukes?
A drone is a remote controlled aero vehicle. Basically they already exist to the public if you mod an rc helicopter with video site. Also have the option of adding or not adding guns to it.
Everyone always reaches for the nuclear bomb argument in this case....? is obnoxious but you know what? Yes. Yes I do believe that people should have the right to walk round with nuclear armaments...after all the only ? crazy enough to have used that ? is the US gvt.
After all the constitution protects people from having their person and property violated it says nothing about protecting people from fear...no document can do that.
If a person isnt violating these two principles then I couldnt give a ? because you know what its not a crime.
