Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

In which case it is you that has invoked the non sequitur.

 

you just fell for the trap. thanks for undercutting your fellow traveler.

DUH

 

You are asking him to PROVE that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Supreme Law of the Land?

That is utterly nonsensical.

 

Your tacit admission of failure to refute what I posted is accepted.

Have a nice day!

 

There is nothing to refute, You contradicted Daniel which was what I expected. you never proved your claims about my positions either. So you were the tool I used to undermine DP's nonsense

 

Do you deliberately ignore what people write because you cannot debate it or do you really believe that was my point? of course the Supreme Law is the supreme law. that wasn't the issue and you know it

 

No.
He is real.
You, not so much.

 

In other words those rights are implied, not expressed.

 

Well, many cannot see the difference between a Right and a privilege, Priveledges are discretion based, and granted to some, not all based on at least merit.

You have a Right to travel, walk anywhere in the U.S.A. save restricted areas, private property etc..
So you can travel unimpeded and free from unusual search and seizure without probable cause or warrant.

You can ride a horse drawn conveyance.

For motor vehicles, we have accepted licenses and testing and liabilities insurance, it is still a Right.

Aircraft are so regulated for safety concerns, forced 1000 hour maintenance schedules etc....

As a passenger, you have a Right to travel subject to search sans warrant.

 

Under such a standard, the method of operation that would be utilized would not resemble due process as is observed in established courts of law. If any trials were provided to those who commit crimes, they would likely be very short in duration, with executions likely following shortly after a guilty verdict is had.

 

On 9/11/01 Martial law was declared, looters and others could be shot on sight.
We took them into custody.

 

That you can't glean the obvious merit of a learned jurist's writings says far more about you... than about him.

 

lol. it is in our Second Amendment, literally and expressly, not implied.

 

i agree to disagree. Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of our free States.

 

the second amendment reiterates the fact that the federal government was never delegated any power to restrict or ban private citizens firearms choices

its a blanket restriction on the federal government doing anything in this area

 

That was the precise issue that you were disingenuously whining about after DP made THIS post.

That you move the goalposts after being proven wrong is your SOP!

Nothing has changed and it is a waste of time to expect those fixated on their guns to do so either.

Have a nice day!

 

Oh, the IRONY!

 

Yes, those "rights are implied", but the Supreme Law of the Land is EXPRESSED, not implied, which is what DP stated correctly. Turtledude just moved the goalposts because he was wrong about the Supreme Law of the Land being expressed.

 

Ironic!

 

Thank you for just proving that you are NOT what you claim to be.

According to that load of bovine excrement above you erroneously believe you should be allowed to have a Stinger missile as a "private citizens firearms choice".

The Supreme Law of the Land INCLUDES the Heller decision that STIPULATES without any equivocation whatsoever the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just fallaciously alleged above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

 

You realize that Heller was decided over 200 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, right? You're also quoting dicta, not the decision itself, and fail to include that the Second Amendment protects all firearms "in common use for lawful purposes". You seem to ignore Caetano, too, which is eight years newer than Heller.

 

The current Supreme Law of the Land INCLUDES the Constitution, the BOR, the Legislation passed by Congress and signed into Law and the DECISIONS of the SCOTUS. It is disingenuous to insist upon the original wording of the 2nd Amendment AND the Heller decision simultaneously.

Furthermore nothing in Caetano contradicts the findings in Heller that I quoted.

 

No, the disingenuous part is to ignore what TD actually posted, that nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights grants the federal government any power to regulate the firearms of the People. That power grab has happened since. And true, Caetano doesn't contradict Heller, but you only look at the part you want to. Heller protects all firearms "in common use for lawful purposes". Caetano reemphasized that: The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Banning firearms and magazines in common use for lawful purposes violates Second Amendment protections from Heller, and from Miller, too, which the GCAs seem to forget. Miller extends 2A protections to all firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia".

 

Your rant is duly noted and since it clearly indicates a lack of willingness to openly discuss the actual merits of the 2nd and subsequent SCOTUS decisions and instead is nothing more than a regurgitation of the disingenuous NRA distortions of them there is nothing further to be gained.

The government of We the People does have the authority to restrict access to firearms and magazines. There is no "common use for lawful purposes" for having a 30 round magazine or a bump stock that effectively turns an AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon.

Have a nice day!

 

A Stinger missile is not a firearm.