Area gun sales, fears rising

Nov 14, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: North Port Sun

Gun stores in Charlotte County have experienced increased sales since Election Day as local gun owners brace for an anticipated restriction of gun laws following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Comments
6,301 - 6,320 of 7,571 Comments Last updated Jul 23, 2013
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6762
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right, but the difference between District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) & McDonald v. Chicago(2010) is that District of Columbia v. Heller dealt with Federal Enclaves & the 2nd amendment right being incorporated within the Federal Enclaves like Washington DC since they are legally different than the states which meant nothing to the rest of the US states where as McDonald v. Chicago dealt with the 2nd amendment right being incorporated down to the State & Local level which pertained to the states.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within Federal Enclaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
Federal enclave
In United States law, a "federal enclave" is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6763
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
United States Constitution: Second Article of Amendment; Restrictive Clause;

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

United States Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article. VI.: 2nd and 3rd clauses;

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6764
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
And no matter how many times you repeat this same BS....it will NEVER be true.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6765
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
You Useful Idiots on here sound like True Revisionist Leninist/Stalinist which your goal is to destroy the US Constitution altogether and the 2nd amendment is in your way and once you Leninist/Stalinist have all the guns collected & destroyed your revolution will begin & happen just like in Russia beside you keep making false claims here and you know that the SCOTUS has been in your way which the Leninist/Stalinist in Chicago have and still are refusing to fully comply with the SCOTUS McDonald v. Chicago ruling in Chicago and why Chicago was taken back to US Federal Court.

Civilian usage meaning of the Right to keep and bear arms

The right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the second amendment, is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or the people acting collectively has been the topic of several Supreme Court decisions. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the case District of Columbia v. Heller while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being constitutional. Also, the large body of state based law regarding the right to firearms and restrictions on firearms remain largely unchanged, though the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state governments via the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_an...
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6766
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Poor teabaggers.

Still thinking "Someone is gonna come and take my guns".

So why is there such a teabagger frenzy of buying them?

Why would you purchase something you are certain is getting taken away?

Whoops, forgot.

Teabagger logic.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6767
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
Poor teabaggers.
Still thinking "Someone is gonna come and take my guns".
So why is there such a teabagger frenzy of buying them?
Why would you purchase something you are certain is getting taken away?
Whoops, forgot.
Teabagger logic.
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the satisfaction of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]

[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, >>>arms<<<, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."

- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6768
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the satisfaction of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]
[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, >>>arms<<<, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."
- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.
Good tip.

Just show them that when they show up for your guns.

Poor teabagger.
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6769
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And no matter how many times you repeat this same BS....it will NEVER be true.
I'm afraid it is buddy ...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6770
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
Poor teabaggers.
Still thinking "Someone is gonna come and take my guns".
So why is there such a teabagger frenzy of buying them?
Why would you purchase something you are certain is getting taken away?
Whoops, forgot.
Teabagger logic.
Yes it is, because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away.

But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people. Liberal logic:

How do we get states to comply with our control freak desires without stepping on Constitutional States Rights? We stop their highway funding.

How do we get people to stop using tobacco products without going through Congress or Senate and in the process, losing a lot of votes? We tax tobacco products.

How do we force people to purchase a healthcare plan they can or cannot afford? We fine them if they don't.

So DumBama and the other Communists are able to get all guns registered with the federal government. So how do the Communists stop people from buying firearms or using them without stepping on Second Amendment rights? We fine and tax them. Now that we have a list of people and the firearms they own, we simply put an annual tax on them with the taxes increasing every year. We tax ammunition so high that it's unaffordable to shoot, and create federal laws prohibiting people from reloading their own shells.

See, there is no need for the liberals to send armies to every American door to confiscate firearms. They force people to surrender the known arms they have in order to avoid taxation and fines. Many citizens will do it all on their own.
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6771
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is, because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away.
But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people. Liberal logic:
How do we get states to comply with our control freak desires without stepping on Constitutional States Rights? We stop their highway funding.
How do we get people to stop using tobacco products without going through Congress or Senate and in the process, losing a lot of votes? We tax tobacco products.
How do we force people to purchase a healthcare plan they can or cannot afford? We fine them if they don't.
So DumBama and the other Communists are able to get all guns registered with the federal government. So how do the Communists stop people from buying firearms or using them without stepping on Second Amendment rights? We fine and tax them. Now that we have a list of people and the firearms they own, we simply put an annual tax on them with the taxes increasing every year. We tax ammunition so high that it's unaffordable to shoot, and create federal laws prohibiting people from reloading their own shells.
See, there is no need for the liberals to send armies to every American door to confiscate firearms. They force people to surrender the known arms they have in order to avoid taxation and fines. Many citizens will do it all on their own.
Stop your hysterics no one is coming for your guns ...
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6772
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the satisfaction of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]
[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, >>>arms<<<, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."
- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.
Just keep on practicing your copy and paste sooner or later you'll find something that actually makes sense - ye retard!
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6773
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop your hysterics no one is coming for your guns ...
And why is that? Because Republicans (and some Democrats) stopped the process in it's tracks. Imagine an all Democrat federal government with liberal judges. Think they wouldn't try to come after our firearms then?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6774
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is, because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away.
But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people. Liberal logic:
How do we get states to comply with our control freak desires without stepping on Constitutional States Rights? We stop their highway funding.
How do we get people to stop using tobacco products without going through Congress or Senate and in the process, losing a lot of votes? We tax tobacco products.
How do we force people to purchase a healthcare plan they can or cannot afford? We fine them if they don't.
So DumBama and the other Communists are able to get all guns registered with the federal government. So how do the Communists stop people from buying firearms or using them without stepping on Second Amendment rights? We fine and tax them. Now that we have a list of people and the firearms they own, we simply put an annual tax on them with the taxes increasing every year. We tax ammunition so high that it's unaffordable to shoot, and create federal laws prohibiting people from reloading their own shells.
See, there is no need for the liberals to send armies to every American door to confiscate firearms. They force people to surrender the known arms they have in order to avoid taxation and fines. Many citizens will do it all on their own.
"because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away".

Exactly, so why all the teabagger whining about gun confiscation?

"But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people".

As republicans created, passed and signed into law, the "Patriot" Act, which teabaggers defended?

Which violates several aspects of the constitution.

Which also allows for ..........seizing your guns.

The great teabagger response to people who criticized these violations "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

Now teabaggers whine about the same policies they supported and defended.

Poor teabaggers.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6775
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away".
Exactly, so why all the teabagger whining about gun confiscation?
"But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people".
As republicans created, passed and signed into law, the "Patriot" Act, which teabaggers defended?
Which violates several aspects of the constitution.
Which also allows for ..........seizing your guns.
The great teabagger response to people who criticized these violations "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
Now teabaggers whine about the same policies they supported and defended.
Poor teabaggers.
The Patriot Act does not allow government to "seize your guns." More left-wing propaganda. Furthermore, the Democrats had full control of the federal government for two years, yet not one made mention of rescinding the Patriot Act. It's still going on.

So do tell: how did this Patriot Act violate your Constitutional rights? How about members of your family, your friends, your neighbors?

Truth of the matter is that the Patriot Act affected few if any people. But I would be willing to bet you that people you do know (if not yourself) have been victimized by the virtual and physical strip searches at the airport implemented by DumBama. I'm sure you have no problem with that.

I just explained how government "can" confiscate your weapons via taxation and fines. Sorry if you didn't follow.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6776
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Good tip.
Just show them that when they show up for your guns.
Poor teabagger.
"William Henry testified substantially as follows:

"I arrived at Bethlehem on the evening of the 6th of March, 1799. We had heard that there was a party of men would collect, for the purpose of rescuing the prisoners who were there in custody of the marshal; in consequence of that, I went to assist the marshal, and, if possible, prevail on the people to desist. I was one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Northampton. About ten o' clock on the morning of the 7th, two men, with arms, arrived at the tavern where we were; who, when inquired of by the marshal as to their intention in coming armed, appeared to be diffident about answer; after first saying that they came upon a shooting frolic, one of them said they were come in order to see what was best to be done for the country. After that, came in several others, armed and on horseback, two of them in uniform, with swords and pistols...."

"...I also walked out for the same purpose, requesting them to withdraw, and not appear in arms in order to obstruct the process of the United States laws. They answered, that they were freemen, and might go where they pleased with their arms. I told them that they ran great risk by appearing in arms for such a purpose as I feared they were come. They came in a number, but I don t know how many particularly, as they mixed among the crowd. We requested them to deliver up their arms; but they refused. I also, at the same time, told one of them that it would be best for him to surrender himself, and not oppose the process; the others gave me answer, that they had come to accompany their friend, and to see that no injury was done to him. After this I returned into the lower back room of the house; by this time there were a number more collected round the house, but mostly armed. I don't recollect whether it was before these three men arrived, or not, that the marshal had sent off four men of his posse in order to meet the men with arms who were coming forward; and after we were up stairs three men arrived as a deputation from the armed body, making inquiry as to the intention of the marshal in taking these prisoners; with these three men, the four deputed by the marshal had returned from the armed body that was the other side of the bridge, in order to learn the marshal's object. The marshal assured them of the legality of the process, and reasoned with them as to the consequences of opposition, or threats to him, or preventing him from executing his duty; but I believe he liberated the two men that were first put in confinement, and returned them their guns. During the time that these two men were in confinement, we examined their guns, and found them loaded...."

- TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON INSURGENTS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT PHILADELPHIA, 1799-1800, James Iredell, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6777
May 25, 2013
 
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid it is buddy ...
So how is it that everywhere "the people" is mentioned in the USC and the BOR it refers to the individual, but when mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, it all of a sudden means a collective right???

That would be like saying you only have the freedom of speech when assembled in a group, or you can only practice the religion of your choosing when part of a congregation....which is of course bullshit.

Sorry pal. No matter loud you scream or stomp your feet, the 2nd Amendment never was and never will be a collective right. You lose. The Founders AND the SCOTUS say so.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6779
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Armed Veteran wrote:
No matter loud you scream or stomp your feet, the 2nd Amendment never was and never will be a collective right. You lose. The Founders AND the SCOTUS say so.
JusticeScalia wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6780
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
Furthermore, the Democrats had full control of the federal government for two years,
Who leads the House, Pinocchio?

Are you required to lie every day as part of your parole?
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6781
May 25, 2013
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is that? Because Republicans (and some Democrats) stopped the process in it's tracks. Imagine an all Democrat federal government with liberal judges. Think they wouldn't try to come after our firearms then?
Huh, it requires a constitutional amendment ye moron!!!!!!!!!
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6782
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So how is it that everywhere "the people" is mentioned in the USC and the BOR it refers to the individual, but when mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, it all of a sudden means a collective right???
That would be like saying you only have the freedom of speech when assembled in a group, or you can only practice the religion of your choosing when part of a congregation....which is of course bullshit.
Sorry pal. No matter loud you scream or stomp your feet, the 2nd Amendment never was and never will be a collective right. You lose. The Founders AND the SCOTUS say so.
Huh? You retarded?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••