Chevy 2 65
NES Member
I don't think we are getting any help from the feds the supreme court could have and should have but a stop to this back in the Billy boy days.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Someone has to be first... getting the AWB overturned...
- Thread starter Atlantis
- Start date
I don’t have an attitude just because you don’t agree with what I say, get a grip. It’s nice to say that our rights are absolutel and that the second amendment shall not be infringed but time to step back into reality brother. Our rights Are not absolute and there are restrictions on most of them. As far as the right not being limited and due process, clearly you have no idea what an ERPO is. Just youtube Trump’s “ I like taking guns first then due process” comment.
namedpipes
NES Member
You misread the emphasis. I wasn't saying you "have an attitude". Read that as "point of view".
Our rights ARE absolute whether or not they are enumerated in the Constitution and whether or not they are violated by our government does not make them invalid or remove them. It just VIOLATES them.
The ERPO business. I know exactly what it is: A violation of innate rights. It is law and we are compelled to comply "or else" but they are violations of human rights. Just like the AWB and the other 60k or so gun laws in this country.
Scrivener had a pretty good tag line about deserving what you** tolerate.
** not YOU SgtHal75, but you "generally"
Sadly, I have neither.
Haha. OP seems legit.
This made me chuckle.
The more I think about it... Technically a "post healy MA Compliant" is still a violation of the AWB? We are just pretty certain we aren't going to see anyone jammed up on it? But realistically the only difference between building and registering an free state vs ma compliant AR right now is the "optics"... are they not both still violating the same law? One just requires a little digging to prove, the other is obviously a violation due to a bayonet lug etc...
This is what really gets me riled up. Its a completely nonsense law. Like holding the A2 flash hider next to the compensator and thinking... WTF is the difference? Or having to grind down a bayonet lug as if that someone renders the platform "less killy". Its absurdity. The whole thing is absurd.
Here is where the crux of the problem lies. You are rightfully observing and acknowledging the issue. The issue is that there are currently infringements, both small and large, on what is arguably one of the most important rights we have. You seem to have a stance of "that's just the way it is, gotta live with it". And for some people, that's just not good enough.
Look, at the end of the day we are all on the same side. But all branches of Government ( there are 3 of them in case you didn’t know) are limiting and restricting our rights. And just because I state the obvious doesn’t mean I agree with it. I don’t need any respect from keyboard heros like u, I wrote a blank check for this country and YOUR RIGHTS not once but twice.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
I can't speak for everyone else but I'd like to think we all appreciate that sacrifice and appreciate your service. And damn straight we are all on the same side. It's something I wish we could communicate with those across the isle politically as well. I'd wager that if we could all sit down and hear each other out, really hear eachother, we as Americans are more aligned than we realize. There is a machine polarizing us, and the "enemy" isn't the other side. It's the polarizing force.
Last edited:
namedpipes
NES Member
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Not a hero. The rights are not just my rights. They are OURS. I do respect you for the service to this country. So, lets not get all pissy
Are u implying because I tolerate an AWB for example that I deserve to be a niave sheep?... come on man, that’s a good feel good quote but what are we supposed to do, start shooting because we will not be infringed or restricted? Let me ask you seriously, what are u doing to not be restricted in any one of our rights? I will tell you what I do...I donate to organizations like Comm2a and GOA, I call and show up at Local politicians offices (I know it doesn’t do crap in this state anyways), I also donate to organizations like Red Cross and MSPCA. So, not trying to agitate you but when it comes to the pounding of the chest and the quotes please save them for someone else. If you have good examples of court cases and such where somebody’s rights were trampled on and they sued and won please post that, it will be fun and educational for us all.
This was the line of reasoning behind the thread. I want to know what we can do besides passively donating, beating our chests and talking tough, or doing something stupid and emotional. It sounds like there isn't much unfortunately.
Unfortunately I think it’s all gonna be done in the courts. I think that holds true with everything. Take all the major issues: Guns, Abortion, immigration, taxes,...etc etc and it’s all about control. Governments objective is to keep them divided and give them iPhones, nothing to see here folks just keep swiping on that screen. There are things that happen throughout history that does make a change like The Civil Rights movement for example. But, look what gun owners just here on this forum do to each other, can u imagine gun owners all over the country coming together for a million man march on DC to stop the assault on the 2nd Amendment? I can’t unfortunately.
namedpipes
NES Member
In a later post I explicitly point out that "you" is "The People", not SgtHal75, so no.
I'm saying that "we" have allowed our government to overstep its boundaries by a sickening amount.
And no, I'm not advocating starting a shooting war between the People and the government. I'm bitching in my safe space about things I have little or no control over.
What I refuse to do is concede that what our government (all three branches) is doing is moral, ethical or even lawful.
Agreed, 100%
I ultimately don't think the phrase is that damaging, it's just a restatement of the typical courts "reasonable restrictions" bullshit. The other problem is that the court at the time had to swing that POS Kennedy- I am betting that in order to pull him into concurrence, the other four were not as ambitious as they would have liked to be...
-Mike
The COTUS is the supreme law of the land and our politicians swear an oath to uphold it. When they violate that oath they are the lawbreakers. The 2A bars the government from infringing on the right because the founders knew that government wants power and that they will take power over the people if they're allowed to infringe upon the right. It would have been foolish of the founders to put the government in charge of the right to keep & bear arms. They weren't foolish, unfortunately many of our ancestors were in believing that the government had our best interests at heart. Rights don't require permission from the state. They are natural and belong to us all.
I just don't know how in the English language you can be more clear than four simple words.
Shall Not Be Infringed
There is no "but" or "unless" or any other part of that that's a qualifier for infringement.
So yes it's a absolute right.
Unless of course they want to be able to attach qualifiers to something like a woman's right to vote for example.
You would here some screeching then.
ERMAGOD that's a sacred right guaranteed by the constitution !! You can't do that !!!
So ya, there is such a thing as an absolute right.
Shall Not Be Infringed
There is no "but" or "unless" or any other part of that that's a qualifier for infringement.
So yes it's a absolute right.
Unless of course they want to be able to attach qualifiers to something like a woman's right to vote for example.
You would here some screeching then.
ERMAGOD that's a sacred right guaranteed by the constitution !! You can't do that !!!
So ya, there is such a thing as an absolute right.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
No one has ever been able to explain why the wording in the 2nd gets totally FUBAR in the courts?
Last edited:
Similar threads
