Article Laz, Section ME.
Posted on 06/03/2019 5:25:40 AM PDT by JamesP81
Once again, regain your composure and we’ll see if you can address reality.
I jus asked you a question. Lets see if you’ll answer it or deflect.
It's wrong.
Of all the people in the world, I am the right one to own nuclear weapons.
I would only use it in self defense during a mugging or home invasion.
Or maybe putting holes in targets downrange.
Hey, nincompoop:
By what authority does the US cons ban silencer ownership?
I can point to a very specific spot in the us cons that demonstrates that the power does not exist. Can you point to the spot where the us cons is given the authority to ban silencers?
They're really expensive …
Really, REALLY expensive.
And nobody will sell you one.
Except maybe a rogue Russian … and he'll probably sell you a fake.
Making your own is even more expensive … And requires a lot of help. From people who don't want to help you. Except rogue North Koreans or Iranians. And you probably don't want to hang out with them anyway … Industrial accidents happen. Especially with rogue North Koreans and Iranians.
Nuclear weapons are a red herring.
They do not meet the standard test of being a weapon in their own right.
I know that’s a really tough concept for you to grasp, but I think most six year olds would figure that out.
We could make a rudimentary silencer out of some washers, PVC, and a few other odds and ends.
If you put such a thing in your pocket and an officer discovered it on you, would you be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon?
Hey hey hey hey...
“:^)
Under the same concept as Ricin, if Congress deemed a silencer to be an issue of public safety, it could pass legislation to make them illegal.
Hey, don’t look now, but that ricin is going to bite you on the nose.
What’s the authority? Art X, section what?
The rite for me to own a silencer is contained in Art I Sec 8. Where is the power of the g to take it from me?
Please, let me ask you two very simple questions:
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
Article Laz, Section ME.
So you believe the public should be able to own ricin.
Good to know.
Don, tell CFA what his parting gifts are...
Beulah, it’s time...
Can I ask you these two questions? I think it will help clarify things.
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
You believe Congress has no power not specifically outlined in the Constitution.
The ability to criminalize Ricin is not enumerated either.
You are arguing for the decriminalization of Ricin.
Good to know.
Can I ask you these two questions? I think it will help clarify things.
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
Then we should have the liberty to own ricin, right?
Then we should have the liberty to own ricin, right?
Can I ask you these two questions? I think it will help clarify things.
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
These are not trick questions, they are not “gotcha” questions. I don’t know why you won’t answer them.
We could make a rudimentary silencer out of some washers, PVC, and a few other odds and ends.
BFD. You can make a complete pistol out of a few odds and ends of angle-stock and pipe. You have no point.
If you put such a thing in your pocket and an officer discovered it on you, would you be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon?
You might want to familiarize yourself with actual statutory law, rather than figments of your imagination. The Commonwealth of Virginia, to pick an example, prohibits the concealed carrying of certain specified objects. Silencers are not on this list. Interestingly, most objects on that list are not in any way related to firearms. So "no", one who carried a silencer concealed would not be arrested. He might be arrested for NFA violations … and might provide a good test case for getting the NFA overturned for the unconstitutional rubbish that it is.
To summarize:
1) The term "bearing arms" predates the existence of firearms. Therefore, "arms" cannot be restricted to firearms only. Your position has no basis in history.
2) Silencers are "arms". Federal law agrees with me. See my previous reference to ITAR. Your position is contradicted by law.
3) Your attempt to drag state "concealed weapons" laws is a failure. Those laws forbid the concealed carry of specific, enumerated objects. These laws do not help your position regarding the definition of "arms"; they do not presume to define that term.
This issue is closed. Have a nice day.
I am answering them.
Bud, your dogmatic interpretations reach the level of absurdity at some point.
There are clearly times when legislation is called for that doesn’t comport with the Emolument’s Clause.
There are many things I would agree with you on related the this concept. There will (now) obviously be times when I won’t.
Silencers could be deemed to be a threat to public safety. If Congress came down on it that way, I would disagree, but academically speaking, they would clearly have the right to take action.
They took it on Ricin as a public safety issue. They could take it on silencers for the same reason.
Look, making ricin illegal wasn’t conforming to the Emolument’s Clause either. I still think it was a sound judgement.
Okay, so you believe you would be arrested for having a concealed weapon in your pocket if you were found to have a home made silencer in your pocket. We disagree on that too.
The federal government also ruled that the IRS fines for not having health insurance was a tax.
Don’t fall for everything you read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.