Prepper arrested in Everett, WA for having a grenade

[oregonferret]

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.

theconversation.com

Whomever wrote that dribble, diatribe of a shat article is clearly changing context and taking word's out of context for a political stance.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Thanks for the quick, interesting and informative read.

Seems a bit of a stretch to compare keeping local records of having a single, serviceable weapon kept at home tied to an individual to actual " registration ".

The article's author using the word " registration " might be taken as partisan.

No disagreement from me on that, but that was my point.

 

[UncommonDolt]

Theoretically, civilians can own grenades legally. But they are an NFA controlled item, and as a destructive device, permits are needed and fees need to be paid. As a practical matter, I don't know if the ATF gets many such requests because grenades are made for the military and police forces, it might be difficult to buy one legitimately.

Is the NFA and revisions thereto unconstitutional? Court decisions have ruled that it isn't.

Does the 2A grant complete freedom to own any weapon you want? Courts have ruled against this many times. I don't think common citizens had explosive cannon balls in the American Revolution. Which was before the 2A, actually, which came along in 1791.

as written 2a guarantees access to all weapons including nukes and bio weapons.

 

[DunRanull]

One question comes to my mind about the guy and his injury from a blasting cap. Just what was he doing with that? Was he in the process of setting up to blow something up?

This is a pretty good example of how people get caught doing stupid stuff. Often enough, the stupid thing they did leads to other things.

Stupid is as stupid does, my old Mama used to say...

 

[American123]

well since so many people have told scotus to do that and they wont, i dont think thats a solution.

im serious tho - what is the solution? this is something that never really gets discussed among pro2A groups. we complain that the laws are unconstitutional, but we never address the fact that they actually are constitutional so long as the scotus says they are. its like dudes just dont even want to address it, when it is THE reason- or, at least, rationalization given for why- our expressly protected rights are being violated.

and lets be clear - rights are collectively self-professed. they arent given to us by a document. the constitution made an admirable attempt at permanently protecting the rights apparently most foremost in the minds of the framers, but the framers also built a bypass into the document via scotus. unfortunately theres nothing in there that requires the guardians of the document to adhere to any particular reading. presumably to accommodate the evolving needs and desires of We the People.

gun laws ARE constitutional. at least the ones scotus has made decisions on or that follow precedent. so we cant just fall back on "its unconstitutional!" and stop... thats patently false.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).

Repugnant:
in conflict with; incompatible with.
"a bylaw must not be repugnant to the general law of the country"

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

"… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The founders did their best to protect this republic from human nature, however no system that involves humans is beyond the failures of such nature. They also seemingly expected Americans to get smarter with time and not dumber because they wrote things rather straight forward and it was likely considered extremely clear at the time.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" - James Madison.

This quote from Madison acknowledges that people are fallible and the constitution would not prevent people with agendas from distorting the constitution or corrupting the processes and powers that it laid out for government at a state or federal level.

All gun laws are unconstitutional, they cannot be anything but that, because they blatantly conflict with the constitution. It doesn't matter if a majority of 9 black robed lawyers decided to agree differently based on whatever their reasoning, intentions or personal bias.

If you want me to describe to you how to fix this situation - that is analogous to trying to win a rigged game. It can't be done unless we embrace tyranny of the masses. Which is to say that if the majority of people vote a certain way, influence elections a certain way, influence judges appointed to positions a certain way and then demand a review of constitutionality of some of these current unconstitutional rulings, then they could be overturned. However that same process could be applied again to effect the opposite ruling.

That example represents nothing more than mob rule however and the constitution was specifically designed help prevent that.

 

[oregonferret]

Blasting cap in hand = to learn a lesson the hard way.

 

[DunRanull]

Blasting cap in hand = to learn a lesson the hard way.

View attachment 1202525

Day-um, dude... That's just nasty!

 

[The B]

All gun laws are unconstitutional, they cannot be anything but that, because they blatantly conflict with the constitution. It doesn't matter if a majority of 9 black robed lawyers decided to agree differently based on whatever their reasoning, intentions or personal bias.

these "black robed lawyers" are the interpreters of the constitution. they are effectively the constitution, as the constitution lays it out.

If you want me to describe to you how to fix this situation - that is analogous to trying to win a rigged game. It can't be done unless we embrace tyranny of the masses. Which is to say that if the majority of people vote a certain way, influence elections a certain way, influence judges appointed to positions a certain way and then demand a review of constitutionality of some of these current unconstitutional rulings, then they could be overturned. However that same process could be applied again to effect the opposite ruling.

so youre saying what can be done is being done.

look.. my point here is that you cant lean on the constitution when it is in fact that very same constitution that is responsible for allowing the disagreeable things youre claiming violate it. its circular and and self defeating and offers no end point.

"its unconstitutional!" isnt enough anymore. solutions wont be found with the constitution the way its currently written.

 

[American123]

these "black robed lawyers" are the interpreters of the constitution. they are effectively the constitution, as the constitution lays it out.


so youre saying what can be done is being done.

look.. my point here is that you cant lean on the constitution when it is in fact that very same constitution that is responsible for allowing the disagreeable things youre claiming violate it. its circular and and self defeating and offers no end point.

"its unconstitutional!" isnt enough anymore. solutions wont be found with the constitution the way its currently written.

"these "black robed lawyers" are the interpreters of the constitution."

There is where your entire thought process falters. It does not need to be interpreted. It is not another language that only they are fluent in and are therefore required to explain to Americans what it means.

It needs to be read, period. What does it say? Period.

Edit:

If you read the constitution as written, it's clear. If you let a lot of lawyers "interpret" it for you, then no wonder the outcome is BS.

The train is already off the rails though. The federal government does not have the power to do a lot of the things it does on a daily basis if you read what the constitution says it has the power to do.

Long term fix (if it can be fixed) requires cultural shift in how/what American's are taught in education as far as to effect social change later as adults.

Currently, a bunch of dumbed down kids who never read the constitution and will grow up to be dumbed down and completely indoctrinated adults will never effect the status quo and reclaim rights lost to the encroachment of government.

Short term fix is more vigorous, but less peaceful and likely less practical and I'm not going to go into that.

 

[oregonferret]

I do believe this thread was about some tard popping his fingers off??
'"Hopefully" lol..

 

[TorchRedTulsan]

I do believe this thread was about some tard popping his fingers off??
'"Hopefully" lol..

I agree, but then someone offered to send me to the San Juans and feed me for life and I lost interest in the rest of the thread

 

[DunRanull]

"these "black robed lawyers" are the interpreters of the constitution."

There is where your entire thought process falters. It does not need to be interpreted. It is not another language that only they are fluent in and are therefore required to explain to Americans what it means.

It needs to be read, period. What does it say? Period.

Edit:

If you read the constitution as written, it's clear. If you let a lot of lawyers "interpret" it for you, then no wonder the outcome is BS.

The train is already off the rails though. The federal government does not have the power to do a lot of the things it does on a daily basis if you read what the constitution says it has the power to do.

Long term fix (if it can be fixed) requires cultural shift in how/what American's are taught in education as far as to effect social change later as adults.

Currently, a bunch of dumbed down kids who never read the constitution and will grow up to be dumbed down and completely indoctrinated adults will never effect the status quo and reclaim rights lost to the encroachment of government.

Short term fix is more vigorous, but less peaceful and likely less practical and I'm not going to go into that.

"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." Been a long time since this applied to the Fed.gov

 

[American123]

"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." Been a long time since this applied to the Fed.gov

Yes, and that's a problem.

 

[sobo]

If you want me to describe to you how to fix this situation - that is analogous to trying to win a rigged game. It can't be done

Henry Bowman knew of a way...

 

[sobo]

Short term fix is more vigorous, but less peaceful and likely less practical and I'm not going to go into that.

Like I said... Henry Bowman...

 

[American123]

Henry Bowman knew of a way...

Now you're teaching me. I'm ignorant of who that is.

Edit: the internet is an amazing thing.

Looks like I have some reading to do:

https://billstclair.com/Unintended-Consequences.pdf

 

[sobo]

Now you're teaching me. I'm ignorant of who that is.

Edit: the internet is an amazing thing.

Looks like I have some reading to do:

https://billstclair.com/Unintended-Consequences.pdf

You most certainly do...

 

[BAJ475]

You most certainly do...

But the sad thing is that John Ross passed recently and we may never learn where Henry hid that Solothrun S-18/100.

 

[BAJ475]

Now you're teaching me. I'm ignorant of who that is.

Edit: the internet is an amazing thing.

Looks like I have some reading to do:

https://billstclair.com/Unintended-Consequences.pdf

When you finish let us know if you want to join sobo and I as part of the HB and/or Bowman/Mann Charter Air Service fans clubs!

 

[sobo]

When you finish let us know if you want to join sobo and I as part of the HB and/or Bowman/Mann Charter Air Service fans clubs!

And the Bowman/Mann Porcine-Based Recycling Service...