http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p/2nd_amendment.htm
My simple point, not everyone agrees with your interpretation.
My simple point, not everyone agrees with your interpretation.
Government WILL Ban Guns Soon....
- Thread starter krunchbubble
- Start date
- Status
If you can't tell me in your own words which of the 27 words in the 2nd amendment I am misinterpreting then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I don't need a law school treatise of 10K words to explain to me what 27 words mean. The language is quite simple, and you can not quite simply tell me why I can't own a tank.
AzGrOw-N-sMoKe
Active member
[YOUTUBEIF] RablPaIREkk [/YOUTUBEIF]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk
Last edited:
B
BrnCow
From the Washington Times...wonder if this stuff transcends party lines?
The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.
It’s a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property — not a person — is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.
Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.
Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it’s extremely lucrative. The Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, “The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established.”
The main problem is that civil forfeiture creates a perverse profit motive, leaving bureaucrats with strong incentives to abuse a process that doesn’t sufficiently protect those who may be wrongly accused. Criminal forfeiture is more appropriate because it’s tied to a conviction in a court with the option of a jury trial and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocents like Mr. Lieto have to fight against the might of the U.S. government with a watered-down standard that stacks the legal deck so prosecutors can get a quick win.
The rule extending civil-forfeiture power to the ATF recognizes this dynamic, stating with perhaps unconscious cynicism that an uncontested civil forfeiture “can be perfected for minimal cost” compared to the “hundreds or thousands of dollars” and “years” needed for judicial forfeiture. Nowhere is there any recognition of the burden placed on innocent citizens stripped of their property, or of the erosion of their civil liberties. In fact, the rule argues that, because in the past the ATF could turn over requests for civil forfeiture to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there has been no change in “individual rights.”
Instead of expanding the profit motive in policing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should be working to eliminate it.
Read more: GHEI: ATF's latest gun grab - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/atfs-latest-gun-grab/#ixzz25rXnME1I
The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.
It’s a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property — not a person — is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.
Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.
Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it’s extremely lucrative. The Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, “The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established.”
The main problem is that civil forfeiture creates a perverse profit motive, leaving bureaucrats with strong incentives to abuse a process that doesn’t sufficiently protect those who may be wrongly accused. Criminal forfeiture is more appropriate because it’s tied to a conviction in a court with the option of a jury trial and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocents like Mr. Lieto have to fight against the might of the U.S. government with a watered-down standard that stacks the legal deck so prosecutors can get a quick win.
The rule extending civil-forfeiture power to the ATF recognizes this dynamic, stating with perhaps unconscious cynicism that an uncontested civil forfeiture “can be perfected for minimal cost” compared to the “hundreds or thousands of dollars” and “years” needed for judicial forfeiture. Nowhere is there any recognition of the burden placed on innocent citizens stripped of their property, or of the erosion of their civil liberties. In fact, the rule argues that, because in the past the ATF could turn over requests for civil forfeiture to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there has been no change in “individual rights.”
Instead of expanding the profit motive in policing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should be working to eliminate it.
Read more: GHEI: ATF's latest gun grab - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/atfs-latest-gun-grab/#ixzz25rXnME1I
your link either
a:has not been updated in ~5 years
or
b:is purposefully misleading
this HAS been decided by scotus
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
the english language is pretty neat in that it makes things like the second amendment only open to interpretation if you ignore the basic meaning of words and punctuation
Hydrosun there is no words that say you cant own a tank, fuck i would feel safer if you owned a tank lol. I think yor definition is spot on, sound like you have done your reasearch and are able to explain it, funny watchin ya argue with people who have no idea what there talking about and just post links.
Hello MummyCat,
yes, you can kill yourself in a lot of different ways. What I mean is, for example, your drunk, your sad and after a second your probs are gone. Hanging yourself or jumping from a house needs more time and it´s harder to do it.
I think my self esteem argument is very good.
Oh no, please not, the europeans/germans don´t want weapons for everybody and all around! It´s totally different to the states.
People which likes guns are crazy for most of the europeans. In germany we´ve got a word for it "Waffennarr", what means fool of weapons.
Personaly I can´t say it for sure, if I was born and raised in the states, I think in my younger years I had bought a gun.
Best regards
Hello resinryder,
What I wanted to say was, that crime with a gun is possible in germany too.
In germany/europe it´s diffrent, as I wrote above, guys with to much love for guns got pimples and a smal penis. They are geeks or nerds.
Nobody takes them serious. It´s an other culture.best regards
Hello MummyCat,
yes, you can kill yourself in a lot of different ways. What I mean is, for example, your drunk, your sad and after a second your probs are gone. Hanging yourself or jumping from a house needs more time and it´s harder to do it.
Have you ever been drunk and sad with a 9mm to your head? I have. I'm still here.
It would have been easier to jump off a building... it's a different psychology than a gun.
Stay Safe!
Lung.Butter
Active member
what's the law on nukes? can i buy one for self defence purposes?
G
greenmatter
Do you really think your handguns, shotties, hunting rifles and even AKs and AR15s are going to be of any use whatsoever against the drones, helicopter gunships, and tanks, that would inevitably be used if there ever was an uprising in the US.
They dont really do the Taliban much good when all's said and done, do they. The average citizen is at a massive disadvantage compared to the US gov.
How many Apaches(and associated armaments) are on sale at you local gunshop.
They dont really do the Taliban much good when all's said and done, do they. The average citizen is at a massive disadvantage compared to the US gov.
How many Apaches(and associated armaments) are on sale at you local gunshop.
G
greenmatter
so true!!!! and the whole time i thought i was the only one who never believed that Skeeter and Cleatus was what was holding the russians at bay.
the second amendment can be read in a 100 different ways but "all enemies foreign and domestic" is pretty clear. if U.S. troops all follow their oath we are going to be hopelessly outgunned.
you can have a tank and you can buy one easilly if you got the cash. goodluck with the firepower tho as you wont get a working cannon. gimme the right vehicle and i can put armor on it for ya and make a few mods too.lol
Yes, they will. We outnumber them by a large margin. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon loaded with backup tapes.
And the last I heard, the so-called Taliban was still around... after how many years of apaches and drones and military whatnot?
Stay Safe!
if I was going to oppose the U.S. Government?...I would need a good vest like they use in Afghanistan.
It would be easy to get in close. (just dial 911)
FreedomFightr
Member
This thread is still going on?
Disadvantage?..........how is 1.5 million(+1.5 million reserve).....3 million soldiers an advantage against roughly 70 million gun owners.
They do not sell Apaches at the local gunshop....but hop over to Mcdonnell-Douglas with the grip and you are good to go.......you do understand that private firms build military armament............anti aircraft guns really are not as far fetched as you believe.......G.E. brings good things to life............the funny thing about manned aircraft is..... a simple laser pointer makes a good weapon.
Cheers
StellarP
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Blowfish F2s from Three Little Birds Recently Popped- Latest: Crazy Chester
-
Latest posts
-
-
Blowfish F2s from Three Little Birds Recently Popped
- Latest: Crazy Chester
-
