Any updates on MMJ and Guns

[UncleBuck]

Some of you may not know this fucktard UncleBuck, but shit stains of life like this looser are hard to come by. He is a perfect example of one more confident than correct and completely clueless.

i was completely correct, actually. even scalia has said that restrictions on gun ownership are perfectly consistent with the second.

might want to learn to spell, LOSER.

LOL!

 

[UncleBuck]

You obviously don't get it. ^ This,...BS... is just the latest political stunt being used to subvert our rights. Trouble is, people are buying it.

The second amendment was worded specifically differently to prevent such infringements. It stands out among the other amendments in its wording and its meaning, and this was done intentionally.

you're tripping, sistah.

go read the heller decision, specifically what scalia said. go brush up on your history, they have "infringed" on the second before and it was held as perfectly constitutional.

the first amendment says that speech may not be abridged, but speech is abridged. not all speech is protected.

try again, sistah.

 

[UncleBuck]

facepalm.

Although democrats and republicans are just two sides of the same filthy coin, history does repeat itself. They won't go door to door just yet. They chip away at it little by little. Requiring licenses to exercise a right, mag bans, tax stamps, (where have we seen that before), monthly purchase limits, gun free zones, etc...

I have no use for talking heads, but here's a little propaganda for you.

hitler expanded gun rights, simpleton.

you should brush up on your history.

 

[UncleBuck]

Theres no way to get a criminal to obey laws, they break them, which is by definition what a criminal is. Therefore, creating more restrictive gun laws applies only to the law abiding.

that's absolutely retarded.

laws don't effect the law abiding, laws effect those who don't obey them

if we follow your logic, we might as well get rid of pedophilia laws since they don't stop all pedophiles.

if we follow your logic, we might as well get rids of murder laws since they don't stop all murders, right?

the fuck is wrong with these gun nuts?

 

[ProdigalSun]

You do use examples in other countries. One of the things you posted earlier mentioned gun confiscation in other countries followed immediately by the death totals in that country in the following years. Outside of you using what happens in other countries ONLY when it confirms you're own belief this particular excerpt is leading people to believe this atrocities are a direct result of gun confiscation. That is a stretch at best.

Also there is a wide variety of criminals. Every revolutionary in the revolutionary war was a criminal. Martin Luther King was a criminal. Be specific of the things you fear because being afraid of all criminals is an odd position to take. Now if you were to say you want to be able to prevent a violent attack against you, a loved one or a stranger that would make more sense to me. Encouraging people to take up arms to fight criminals is dangerous in my estimation. It would be like starting a war on terror.

Using examples of history is far and apart from comparing social, economic and demographic issues between two nations.

you're tripping, sistah.

go read the heller decision, specifically what scalia said. go brush up on your history, they have "infringed" on the second before and it was held as perfectly constitutional.

the first amendment says that speech may not be abridged, but speech is abridged. not all speech is protected.

try again, sistah.

Scalia simply stepped outside the bounds of the constitution, thereby infringing upon it. The constitution does not grant rights to citizens, those rights pre dated the constitution. What the Constitution does do however, is to impose limits on government, Supreme Court and activist judges included. The second amendment was worded specifically to "the right of the people", and again, "shall not be infringed", specifically for that reason. The tenth amendment reserves rights to be taken up by the states themselves if they so desire, as Michigan has in this instance. Article one section 6 of the Michigan constitution is a bit more specific in its reading. "Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state".

Why call me names? I've been doing thos for years, and am ready to engage the united stated government in a shooting war over our rights. You do not irritate me in the slightest.

Right before taking the previous gun owning free population to death camps.

 

[somepotname]

I'm gonna say it's unlikely ProdigalSun is a pedophile. I don't know him but it's just the odds. I guess you are just as likely to be a pedophile. Certainly nothing PS has said would lead me to believe he/she is a pedophile. Maybe you should sit this one out UncleBuck.

I will say I don't think it's nuts for citizens to be able to not only protect themselves but overthrow if necessary their government.

 

[UncleBuck]

Scalia simply stepped outside the bounds of the constitution, thereby infringing upon it. The constitution does not grant rights to citizens, those rights pre dated the constitution. What the Constitution does do however, is to impose limits on government, Supreme Court and activist judges included. The second amendment was worded specifically to "the right of the people", and again, "shall not be infringed", specifically for that reason.

do you have any idea what judicial review is? what the purpose of the supreme court is? clearly you do not.

judicial review means that what the SCOTUS says is constitutional IS constitutional.

scalia, the most conservative among the justices, has said that restrictions are perfectly consistent with the second. other justices back him up.

again, the first amendment says speech "shall not be abridged", but yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech. speech is abridged, and that is perfectly consistent with the first.

if you've been doing this for years, i'd be ashamed. you are completely misinformed and completely out of your element. you are spreading disinformation and propaganda, basically just carrying water for the NRA like a good little bitch.

stop lying to everyone here and get educated.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm gonna say it's unlikely ProdigalSun is a pedophile. I don't know him but it's just the odds. I guess you are just as likely to be a pedophile. Certainly nothing PS has said would lead me to believe he/she is a pedophile. Maybe you should sit this one out UncleBuck.

I will say I don't think it's nuts for citizens to be able to not only protect themselves but overthrow if necessary their government.

the second does not provide for overthrow of the government. that would be the absolutist interpretation and it has been rejected.

when the second was written, we fought the government with muskets and cannon balls, now there are nuclear arms and chemical warfare.

and yeah, was just throwing shit at PS for spreading so many lies and trying to exalt himself as someone who has been "doing this for years".

 

[ProdigalSun]

that's absolutely retarded.

laws don't effect the law abiding, laws effect those who don't obey them

if we follow your logic, we might as well get rid of pedophilia laws since they don't stop all pedophiles like you.

if we follow your logic, we might as well get rids of murder laws since they don't stop all murders, right?

the fuck is wrong with these gun nuts?

So Im a pedophile now?

What new law would you propose that criminals would follow?

I'll give you an example to back up my point. It is illegal for a person to keep a gun in their vehicle for self defense without a license to do so.

Case in point :

A law abiding citizen has no defense against an armed carjacker, because the law abiding has put their gun in the trunk in compliance with the law. Now the carjacker comes along, and takes the persons car at gunpoint. He is a criminal, not following with several laws that must be broken in order to successfully complete a carjacking. Now the criminal has the persons car, is in posession of a firearm within that persons vehicle as he is driving away. And gets a bonus, the law abiding persons gun, which was locked in the trunk, useless to the citizen for preventing this slew of crimes because people like you decided to try and regulate a right that was designed specifically to be unregulated. By doing so, you have enabled the criminal, put a citizen in grave danger, and yet another gun out on the streets.

 

[ProdigalSun]

do you have any idea what judicial review is? what the purpose of the supreme court is? clearly you do not.

judicial review means that what the SCOTUS says is constitutional IS constitutional.

scalia, the most conservative among the justices, has said that restrictions are perfectly consistent with the second. other justices back him up.

again, the first amendment says speech "shall not be abridged", but yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech. speech is abridged, and that is perfectly consistent with the first.

if you've been doing this for years, i'd be ashamed. you are completely misinformed and completely out of your element. you are spreading disinformation and propaganda, basically just carrying water for the NRA like a good little bitch.

stop lying to everyone here and get educated.

The constitution is there to limit the government, supreme court included.

For the record, I despise the NRA.

 

[UncleBuck]

So Im a pedophile now?

What new law would you propose that criminals would follow?

the law isn't there so criminals follow it, it is there to hold criminals who get caught accountable.

your line of logic would get rid of pedophilia laws, since pedos don't exactly consult a book of laws before doing their sick acts.

the law is there so that we can put the pedo away for the rest of his life when caught.

think about what you say and the logic of your statements.

 

[hydrogreen65]

So Im a pedophile now?

What new law would you propose that criminals would follow?

I'll give you an example to back up my point. It is illegal for a person to keep a gun in their vehicle for self defense without a license to do so.

Case in point :

A law abiding citizen has no defense against an armed carjacker, because the law abiding has put their gun in the trunk in compliance with the law. Now the carjacker comes along, and takes the persons car at gunpoint. He is a criminal, not following with several laws that must be broken in order to successfully complete a carjacking. Now the criminal has the persons car, is in posession of a firearm within that persons vehicle as he is driving away. And gets a bonus, the law abiding persons gun, which was locked in the trunk, useless to the citizen for preventing this slew of crimes because people like you decided to try and regulate a right that was designed specifically to be unregulated. By doing so, you have enabled the criminal, put a citizen in grave danger, and yet another gun out on the streets.

Yep, some people have all the book smarts in the world, and not enough common sense to use it.

 

[UncleBuck]

The constitution is there to limit the government, supreme court included.

marbury versus madison, judicial review. the supreme court gave themselves the power to decide what is and what is not constitutional, like it or not. and that will never change.

that said, even the most conservative justice says certain restrictions are consistent with the second, just as certain abridgements are consistent with the first.

learn your basic history before spreading your disinformation, junior.

 

[ProdigalSun]

the second does not provide for overthrow of the government. that would be the absolutist interpretation and it has been rejected.

when the second was written, we fought the government with muskets and cannon balls, now there are nuclear arms and chemical warfare.

and yeah, was just throwing shit at PS for spreading so many lies and trying to exalt himself as someone who has been "doing this for years".

The same people who wrote the second amendment not only wrote it down, but they overthrew their government, and gave us instructions to do the same. I suggest that you do some research into the subject yourself. Start here. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

 

[ProdigalSun]

marbury versus madison, judicial review. the supreme court gave themselves the power to decide what is and what is not constitutional, like it or not. and that will never change.

that said, even the most conservative justice says certain restrictions are consistent with the second, just as certain abridgements are consistent with the first.

learn your basic history before spreading your disinformation, junior.

Imagine that.

 

[UncleBuck]

The same people who wrote the second amendment not only wrote it down, but they overthrew their government, and gave us instructions to do the same. I suggest that you do some research into the subject yourself. Start here. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

so are you advocating for an absolutist interpretation of the second? are you really saying that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs and the means for chemical warfare?

 

[UncleBuck]

Imagine that.

guess what they used to give themselves that power?

hint: it rhymes with ponstitution.

you really should brush up on marbury v madison, heller v DC, and so much mroe before opening your uninformed mouth.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Seen that one before.

Actually, if they have the resources and knowledge to develop and maintain them then yes. I have no problem with it, as those so well educated would know better than to use such weapons.

BTW, the police use chemical weapons on people daily.

 

[ProdigalSun]

If you want to take my guns from me, you're welcome to try.

 

[UncleBuck]

Seen that one before.

Actually, if they have the resources and knowledge to develop and maintain them then yes. I have no problem with it, as those so well educated would know better than to use such weapons.

BTW, the police use chemical weapons on people daily.

lol, have fun believing in an absolutist interpretation of the second. you've basically just admitted that you live in a fantasy world.

you heard it here first, folks. any deluded wingnut can purchase a nuclear bomb from some eastern bloc shithole, because it shall not be infringed!

(hint: it actually may be infringed)