Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional

Average Joe said:
If my logic is flawed, let’s stop all other styles and freedoms of speech that is not peaceably assembled in the public square, given verbally or paper printed, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances You know all the emails, phones, texts, tweets, Facebook, and etc. Those methods of speech and communications weren’t around when the 1st amendment was ratified. Yet the courts use my logic and apply it to the 1st, why wouldn’t they apply it to the 2nd?
Click to expand...
Which of the other amendments provides you with the "freedom" to possess something that kill someone else?
 
Dale Gribble said:
Indeed.

“Arms” is a very broad term and I believe it was worded that way intentionally.

Nowhere in Amendment II will you find the words “legitimate sporting purpose”, “arms that can be carried/wielded by a single individual”, “permit”, “tax” or “form”.

The only prohibition to be found in the amendment is in the last four words and it is not meant to restrict the people, but the government. The other rights listed in the BOR come without regulation…you can speak freely or worship as you choose, independent of special permission from the government, so why is it that government believes it has the authority to gut the RTKBA with restrictions, regulations or prohibitions?

Fact is, government has no authority to do so. Have they? Yes and it is a crime against the Constitution and the people.
Click to expand...
I'll answer the same way as I did above when asking why 2A and not the others, "Which of the other amendments provides you with the 'freedom' to possess something that can kill someone else?"
 
Joe. said:
I'll answer the same way as I did above when asking why 2A and not the others, "Which of the other amendments provides you with the 'freedom' to possess something that can kill someone else?"
Click to expand...
The 1st-A. Words certainly have killed.
 
Joe. said:
I'll answer the same way as I did above when asking why 2A and not the others, "Which of the other amendments provides you with the 'freedom' to possess something that can kill someone else?"
Click to expand...

On September 11, 2001, 19 folks boarded 4 separate commercial aircraft. They were able to comandeer those aircraft and in a few short hours, racked up a death toll of almost 3,000 people, to say nothing of the fact that in the months following, their actions directly contributed to the destruction of even more of our liberty. They were armed with $5 tools that I could’ve walked into a hardware store and purchased at 16; no paperwork, no background checks, no nothing except an exchange of cash and a product.

Box cutters….3,000 people…a few hours…box cutters.

You stated, “Which of the other amendments provides you with the 'freedom' to possess something that can kill someone else?"

Is that why you believe .gov has the reason / authority to regulate the RTKBA?

Got some news for you, Flash and if you like things sugar-coated, well, that ain’t my style, so you better grab yourself a chair and sit down, because what I’m about to break to you may be a bit more than you can handle.

The PRIMARY intent of the right enumerated in Amendment II was to ensure (NOT “allow”) the citizenry had adequate means to preserve/protect their liberty against ANY and ALL threats.

The Founders knew the act of preserving/protecting that liberty, depending upon the threat, would, most likely, involve exactly what YOU stated (see above in bold).

The main intent behind the RTKBA is not about being a “sportsman” or “hunter”…it’s about being a free citizen and the sole purpose of that right is ensuring that free citizens have the capability of remaining free citizens…that’s it…that’s all.

Now, you can attempt to distort, dilute, “water-down” or twist those words into saying something more palatable than what it does and/or what it means, but it’s all hogwash.

The intent/meaning is clear.
 
Last edited:
Joe. said:
Which of the other amendments provides you with the "freedom" to possess something that kill someone else?
Click to expand...
Dang it! Looks like something happened while I was working. What did I miss?
 
Joe. said:
I'll answer the same way as I did above when asking why 2A and not the others, "Which of the other amendments provides you with the 'freedom' to possess something that can kill someone else?"
Click to expand...
That's quite literally the definition of right to bear arms. You could just transpose it as "The right to possess things designed to kill other people".

So basically what you are asking is, which other right gives you the freedom to possess arms?

There's only one I know of. LoL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom