US school shooting revives gun debate

[Cathouse Mouse]

just another guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey loon. No matter what happens in an election, the Constitution must be followed. No crying from the people about that. Except for you loons.

Any gun can be added to the banned list. There's nothing unconstitutional about it. The second amendment is not absolute. As long as the goverment allows you to arm yourself, it can limit what is considered approved arms. In fact, if the Governement wanted to, they could limit your right to arms as weapons of the era inwhich the Amendment was approved. You could end up with only the right to own manual load muskets - or maybe even sling-shots.

No US Contitutional Amendment is absolute.

[Death Kitten]

I saw a movie once where only the government and military had guns.

It was called Schindler's List.

[downhill246]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Any gun can be added to the banned list. There's nothing unconstitutional about it. The second amendment is not absolute. As long as the goverment allows you to arm yourself, it can limit what is considered approved arms. In fact, if the Governement wanted to, they could limit your right to arms as weapons of the era inwhich the Amendment was approved. You could end up with only the right to own manual load muskets - or maybe even sling-shots.
No US Contitutional Amendment is absolute.

No they can't. Confiscating legally owned firearms under new legislation that makes them illegal would, by definition, be an an ex post facto law. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution which means the government must grandfather all existing legally owned firearms.

[Cathouse Mouse]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
No they can't. Confiscating legally owned firearms under new legislation that makes them illegal would, by definition, be an an ex post facto law. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution which means the government must grandfather all existing legally owned firearms.

If new laws passed by the Federal Governemnt state you cannot own or possess an AR-15, it means just that.

[downhill246]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
If new laws passed by the Federal Governemnt state you cannot own or possess an AR-15, it means just that.

That is an ex post facto law and that is unconstitutional and unconstitutional means just that. Glad I could help.

[Cathouse Mouse]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is an ex post facto law and that is unconstitutional and unconstitutional means just that. Glad I could help.

Wrong,... ex post facto laws are not presumptively unconstitutional.

[downhill246]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong,... ex post facto laws are not presumptively unconstitutional.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.

[barefoot2626]

Le Jimbo wrote:

'THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'

Funny how an expert on copy and paste like you (and the other aliases you post under) some how left off the first part of the amendment.

As you always do...

[barefoot2626]

Death Kitten wrote:

I saw a movie once where only the government and military had guns.
It was called Schindler's List.

You are a liar.

I think to be a member of the NRA- or a fellow traveler- it is required that you can lie without batting an eye and you got eyebatting down pat.

Putting aside your strained metaphor... Germany did not ban private ownership of guns...

[ScOoTeR]

leftards all have their panties in a bunch.don't know why they do,as they shoot revolvers and can't shoot a semi auto with a limp wrist and they might get to keep the revolvers.

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

No they can't.

Yes they can, Donglicker, and they have before (and to an unfortunately too limited extent) limit them now.

Look forward to bans on assault weapons, limits on semiautomatic handguns, a federally run gun registration program, elimination of massacre magazines, and an ATF with teeth.

Tick tock...

[downhill246]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong,... ex post facto laws are not presumptively unconstitutional.

Feinstein's Assault weapon ban proposal

Although current owners of banned weapons would have their guns grandfathered in, Sen. Feinstein’s ban would require that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA). According to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, this would impose a “$200 tax per firearm.” In essence, this proposed ban would punish gun owners for firearms they already own and that were not illegal at the time of purchase. This is the very definition of an “ex post facto” law, prohibited by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22456/assua...

Then we can't forget this little gem

Obamacare

Gun Amendment in Health Care
Law -- Senate amendment 3276,
Sec. 2716, part c "PROTECTION
OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS"[/
Government CANNOT collect:
"...any information relating to --
(A) the lawful ownership or
possession of a firearm or
ammunition."

2nd Amendment health care with no deductible, no co pay.

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes they can, Donglicker, and they have before (and to an unfortunately too limited extent) limit them now.
Look forward to bans on assault weapons, limits on semiautomatic handguns, a federally run gun registration program, elimination of massacre magazines, and an ATF with teeth.
Tick tock...

Yawn...

Lol Sounds like a liberal wet dream

Obamacare

Gun Amendment in Health Care
Law -- Senate amendment 3276,
Sec. 2716, part c "PROTECTION
OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS"[/

Government CANNOT collect:
"...any information relating to --
(A) the lawful ownership or
possession of a firearm or
ammunition."

present to the NRA.
The Harry Reid

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a liar.
I think to be a member of the NRA- or a fellow traveler- it is required that you can lie without batting an eye and you got eyebatting down pat.
Putting aside your strained metaphor... Germany did not ban private ownership of guns...

It did for the Jews.

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden

Not ex post facto law dingbat!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

Although current owners of banned weapons would have their guns grandfathered in, Sen. Feinstein’s ban would require that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Could be grandfathered.

Could also be banned.

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
It did for the Jews.

Let's see: that would leave 98 percent of Germany with the right to own firearms.

Gosh: that didn't come out in the post, eh?

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not ex post facto law dingbat!
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Now I know you were born with a genetically engineered special kind of stupid. It puts the normal everyday stupid to shame. It borders on perfect stupid and it is only a matter of time before you perfect it, flamer.

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<
Government CANNOT collect:
"...any information relating to --
(A) the lawful ownership or
possession of a firearm or
ammunition."

This week, CNN reported on what they labeled a “secret” provision put in the healthcare law by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that was aimed at keeping gun-right groups from opposing the law.
Conservatives have long argued that since most members of Congress did not read the law, there are several parts of it that we do not yet understand. This CNN report gave conservatives hope that some of those parts may even have ended up benefiting some conservative causes.

CNN claimed that the provision stated that ‘Government cannot collect:“…any information relating to —(A) The lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”‘

Hot Air, Breitbart News and several other conservative sites picked up on that description and reported it as positive news for gun right advocates.

But CNN omitted a key part of that section of the law, which gives the provision a very different meaning. The full section states:

‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the

authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that

Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the

collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm

or ammunition;

‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.’

This means that the provision does not actually prevent the collection of any such data, instead it clarifies that nothing in the new law explicitly grants the government power to collect that information. In other words, if other laws or orders allow for the collection of the data described above, this provision will do nothing to reverse that.

While it is true that we are still figuring out exactly what was in this monstrous 2800 page bill, this specific provision is not really the silver lining some people were looking for.

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Could be grandfathered.
Could also be banned.

Punting already?
The smart legislation would be to grandfather all the firearms and ban all the control freak liberals and protect the few remaining liberals under the Endangered Species Act.