In Defense of the Second Amendment

SKEPTIC

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
May 12, 2007
3,181
1,870
488
1060 W. Addison St., Chicago, Illinois, 60613
#1
Given the gun grabbing climate were in right now, this is an all-encompassing thread in defense of the second amendment.

If you've read an interesting article, book, blog, etc. post it here. Video, audio, whatever.

Or if you just want to vent on anything related to the 2nd amendment. Or ask a question.

One question I have for you all is if you think a federal AWB ("assault" weapons ban) is going to be ruled constitutional by the Supes? I don't have much confidence in Roberts after Obamacare. What do you think?
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#5
Seems straightforward enough.

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,899
15,281
303
#6
I wonder about the precedent from numerous cases that have said that people can't make it such a legal burden to own firearms that it would constitute a legal ban. Putting up a bunch of "laws" that make it essentially impossible for somebody to exercise a right is termed a de facto ban is unconstitutional. I think of places like New York and Illinois which to my mind have de facto bans.

Presumptive illegality and you need to apply to own a firearm
You need two types of CCW and gun permits, one for the state and one for the biggest city in the nation, which is like a state unto itself
It takes forever to be approved
There is a very expensive fee for all licensing. NYC is 440 to just apply and you are statistically unlikely to get approved. More than 400 dollars, more than the cost of many firearms, just to apply for the chance of exercising your rights.
It can be revoked at any time by many different people for unspecified reasons.
The intrusive questioning is not needed for "strict scrutiny." Character witnesses, employer interviews, prescription drug usage are invalid ways to take away rights.
The lengthy wait (6 to 12 months) does not stand up as constitutional, either.
In person registration at distant locations to keep people from complying with burdensome regulation as a pretense to later revoke the right is unconstitutional.
Firearms must be stored disassembled, locked away and unloaded with ammunition stored separately.


Heller (handgun ownership, ownership of longarms in the household allowed), McDonald V Chicago (unconstitutional to ban classes of firearms, firearm ownership as a fundamental individual right), Herrington V U.S.(ruling that onerous ammunition regulation was unconstitutional as it prevented the exercise of the right to bear arms) all show that New York and NYC have de facto bans on the right to bear arms.

Any further obstructive or confiscatory regulation such as a semiautomatic ban or a mandatory "buyback" program would be unconstitutional as well.

You can’t make a fundamental right presumptively unlawful, and only then carve out exceptions where it’s okay. You can only carve out exceptions for the rare occasion when exercising that right would be unlawful.
http://burneylawfirm.com/blog/2010/12/23/is-new-york-citys-gun-law-unconstitutional/

Strict scrutiny means all of these laws are overly broad, not suited to state interest and unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#8
I think the ruling on McDonald V Chicago will be the nail in the coffin of any AWB, IF it even gets to Obama's desk. At this point, I don't see one making it out of the house.
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#9
All tell you one thing. If they pass some sort of ban and order me to confiscate people's AR-15's the US Government can kiss my sweet ass. There is NO fucking way I'm going door to door to step into an ambush.
 

SKEPTIC

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
May 12, 2007
3,181
1,870
488
1060 W. Addison St., Chicago, Illinois, 60613
#10
All tell you one thing. If they pass some sort of ban and order me to confiscate people's AR-15's the US Government can kiss my sweet ass. There is NO fucking way I'm going door to door to step into an ambush.
I'm thinking if that happens, a lot of LEOs are gonna take an early retirement to avoid that.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,106
16,692
839
Your house, behind the couch
#11
One question I have for you all is if you think a federal AWB ("assault" weapons ban) is going to be ruled constitutional by the Supes? I don't have much confidence in Roberts after Obamacare. What do you think?
I have no confidence in our government to do the right thing.

All they care about is pandering to the public to get votes so they
can stay in office and waste our tax dollars. This push to control
guns for "the sake of the children" scares me.

Knee jerk legislation sucks but I'll bet we get plenty of it.
They have no clue that they are giving away everything that
our ancestors fought to obtain.
 

samurai

Ridiculum Anserini
May 16, 2007
20,710
4,184
568
Chicago
#12
I have no confidence in our government to do the right thing.

All they care about is pandering to the public to get votes so they
can stay in office and waste our tax dollars. This push to control
guns for "the sake of the children" scares me.

Knee jerk legislation sucks but I'll bet we get plenty of it.
They have no clue that they are giving away everything that
our ancestors fought to obtain.
I want to hug you for this post, but I'm 700+ miles away, and do not want a temp ban for inappropriate mod contact, so I'll hit the like button. [wavy]
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,283
3,944
563
#13
I wonder if they really push it if Texas will secede? It's just infuriating how logic and fact play a very small part in any political debate in this country.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,251
6,859
568
Nothern VA
#14
Oh, we're completely fucked. On one side we have grabbers who don't know the meaning behind half the terms they use and on the other the NRA who've gone full retard.
 

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
Aug 25, 2002
15,171
5,991
861
In a hot tub having a snow ball fight.
#15
All tell you one thing. If they pass some sort of ban and order me to confiscate people's AR-15's the US Government can kiss my sweet ass. There is NO fucking way I'm going door to door to step into an ambush.
That is exactly what would happen in a lot of places with some of the crazies out there.

Personally, mine were all sold in a legal face to face transfer. No background check required nor registration.....................;):rolleyes::action-sm
 

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
Aug 25, 2002
15,171
5,991
861
In a hot tub having a snow ball fight.
#16
I have no confidence in our government to do the right thing.

All they care about is pandering to the public to get votes so they
can stay in office and waste our tax dollars. This push to control
guns for "the sake of the children" scares me.

Knee jerk legislation sucks but I'll bet we get plenty of it.
They have no clue that they are giving away everything that
our ancestors fought to obtain.

I have a small sliver of confidence in the Supreme Court and the justices that are on it over any fucking elected official. Appointment to the court is a life appointment, no need to campaign for votes. And by sliver of confidence, I mean half an iota of an atoms worth.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#17
All tell you one thing. If they pass some sort of ban and order me to confiscate people's AR-15's the US Government can kiss my sweet ass. There is NO fucking way I'm going door to door to step into an ambush.
Cops like you won't be doing it. They'll get a bunch of poorly trained local goons that think they're Marines.
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#20
I hope they have a good supply of body bags if they try.
Thank you for not being a confiscator.

Imagine neighborhoods with interlocking fields of fire. Try to hide behind your squad car, but there is another house behind you. Ping ping ping.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,106
16,692
839
Your house, behind the couch
#23

SKEPTIC

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
May 12, 2007
3,181
1,870
488
1060 W. Addison St., Chicago, Illinois, 60613
#24
The left sees this as their Dunblane and Port Arthur, and their chance to take this all the way just like they did in the U.K. and Australia (total ban and confiscation).

Dunblane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

Port Arthur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Tasmania)

Repeal the 2nd amendment

In a Twitter message after the National Rifle Association called today for posting armed police officers in every American school, Moore suggested tweaking the Constitution instead. "We saw that prohibition didn't work, so we repealed that amendment. As 'bearing arms' no longer means muskets, let's repeal the 2nd Amendment," the Flint native's Twitter message said.
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2012/12/michael_moore_after_nra_press.html

Australians Urge U.S. to Look to Their Gun Laws

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws

Gun Control in America: The Fierce Urgency of Now

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/gun-control-america-urgency
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,899
15,281
303
#25
Lets ban Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Google + and Reddit. The Founding Fathers clearly had no capability to fathom the sheer douchefuckery it would produce.
Or just the internet period. Along with other things they didn't anticipate such as...
Mass printing
The radio
The television
The cell phone
Internal combustion engines (Freedom of association)

We can all tear the electric grid down, foreswear modern clothing and anything manufactured wholly or in part with the usage of petroleum (everything) and after 95 percent of Earth's population starves to death from lack of machination and chemical fertilizers we can skulk around the 6.8 billion corpses wearing deerskin pantaloons and raccoon hats. Who needs agriculture and civilization anyhow?