The Inaguration of President Joseph R. Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, January 20, 2021

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

2 hours ago, jehurey said:

No.

 

if the law already exists, and nobody has been able to prove that its unconstitutional, then its LITERALLY not encroaching on anything.

 

If it were, it would be stricken down by a federal court.

 

So we will repeat this again................the law has been on the books since 1934. If it's survived that long, its clearly constitutional and isn't "encroaching" on you, at all.

The law doesn't apply to my weapons at the point of purchase therefore said law is irrelevant to it at any time after. 

 

Retroactively applying gun laws to constitutionally protected items after point of sale is nonsensical, and dangerous.

 

The NFA does not apply to any weapons I have purchased. We should be grandfathered in and that's the end of it.

 

2 hours ago, jehurey said:

You have the right to vote, and is one of the most basic rights given to all Americans.

 

Yet that requires you to maintain your registration.

 

And...............you still didn't debunk his question.

 

The second amendment doesn't say "gauranteed WITHOUT any ongoing regulation" does it?

 

In fact, it specifically says the opposite. "WELL REGULATED"

 

WELL.

 

Regulated.

 

Not even "SOMEWHAT REGULATED" or "LIGHTLY REGULATED"

 

But actually "WELL" regulated.

"Shall not be infringed"

 

Stay in your lane short bus.

[Twinblade★ 3,899]

8 minutes ago, nitric said:

It probably had something to do with thousands of  officers and guards patrolling the city and most of them got arrested for insurrection a few weeks ago. You got dementia brah?

 

So you guys admit that only a small group of Trump supporters were responsible for the riots....even though the narrative created by the media and most liberals is that there were tens of thousands of conservatives ready to blow and start another civil war as we got closer and closer to the inauguration. 

 

You sure you're not bipolar brah?

[nitric 472]

5 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

 

So you guys admit that only a small group of Trump supporters were responsible for the riots....even though the narrative created by the media and most liberals is that there were tens of thousands of conservatives ready to blow and start another civil war as we got closer and closer to the inauguration. 

 

You sure you're not bipolar brah?

Did someone call you a terrorist that you think people think all Trump supporters are the rioters? Obviously it was a small portion, but they all have similar brainwashed tin-foil hat wearing mindsets like  yourself. Pretty sure you're retarded, brah.

[ChupacabraIII 134]

11 minutes ago, DynamiteCop said:

The law doesn't apply to my weapons at the point of purchase therefore said law is irrelevant to it at any time after. 

 

Retroactively applying gun laws to constitutionally protected items after point of sale is nonsensical, and dangerous.

 

The NFA does not apply to any weapons I have purchased. We should be grandfathered in and that's the end of it.

 

"Shall not be infringed"

 

Stay in your lane short bus.

How do laws that still allow you to have a firearm infringe on your ability to have a firearm?

 

 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

Just now, ChupacabraIII said:

How do laws that still allow you to have a firearm infringe on your ability to have a firearm?

 

 

Because refusal to comply with laws retroactively applied to firearms you expressly purchased due to their non-NFA status puts you in the position of felony charges and confiscation.

 

Forcing the NFA on already owned guns is ridiculous. 

[jehurey 3,230]

18 minutes ago, DynamiteCop said:

The law doesn't apply to my weapons at the point of purchase therefore said law is irrelevant to it at any time after. 

 

Retroactively applying gun laws to constitutionally protected items after point of sale is nonsensical, and dangerous.

 

The NFA does not apply to any weapons I have purchased. We should be grandfathered in and that's the end of it.

 

"Shall not be infringed"

 

Stay in your lane short bus.

Nope..............sorry you have to read the whole amendement.

 

Well Regulated Militia.

 

You can't pick and choose what to follow in the constitution.

 

No..........if the law already exists............its not "retroactively"

 

Its already existing law.

 

And if it can be enforced, there's nothing to stop it.

[jehurey 3,230]

6 minutes ago, DynamiteCop said:

Because refusal to comply with laws retroactively applied to firearms you expressly purchased due to their non-NFA status puts you in the position of felony charges and confiscation.

 

Forcing the NFA on already owned guns is ridiculous. 

Except the NFA isn't being enforced on THE GUNS.

 

The NFA is being enforce ON YOU, the gunowner.

 

What exactly is your argument here?

 

The National Firearms Act is running a background check..............on the owner.

 

If you don't qualify, then you shouldn't have the guns.

 

No, you don't get "grandfathered", because you can lose qualification at any time.

 

In fact, if you get arrested and charged with a violent crime TOMORROW, get convicted and everything, you lose your guns.

 

Do you honestly think you can tell the cops and the courts: "Well, I bought those guns BEFORE I committed the crime, shouldn't I be grandfathered to still keep them?"

 

The law is not based on the guns, the law is based on YOU and your eligibility.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Except the NFA isn't being enforced on THE GUNS.

 

The NFA is being enforce ON YOU, the gunowner.

 

What exactly is your argument here?

 

The National Firearms Act is running a background check..............on the owner.

 

If you don't qualify, then you shouldn't have the guns.

 

No, you don't get "grandfathered", because you can lose qualification at any time.

 

In fact, if you get arrested and charged with a violent crime TOMORROW, get convicted and everything, you lose your guns.

 

Do you honestly think you can tell the cops and the courts: "Well, I bought those guns BEFORE I committed the crime, shouldn't I be grandfathered to still keep them?"

 

The law is not based on the guns, the law is based on YOU and your eligibility.

The NFA forces you to pay a $200 tax stamp, is tied to the weapon in particular and forces federal registration.

 

None of that is ok after point of purchase, I already completed my obligation and 'contract' with the government.

[Goukosan 2,250]

26 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

 

So you guys admit that only a small group of Trump supporters were responsible for the riots....even though the narrative created by the media and most liberals is that there were tens of thousands of conservatives ready to blow and start another civil war as we got closer and closer to the inauguration. 

 

You sure you're not bipolar brah?

 

Who said it's all Trump supporters that were responsible for what happened on Jan 6th? 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Goukosan

[Goukosan 2,250]

"Law and Order Order is ok when it's applied to everyone else..... its bad when it's applied to me" - DynamiteCop 

[Mr. Impossible 407]

1 hour ago, Twinblade said:

So what happened to all the Trump supporters murdering and pillaging in the streets come Biden's inauguration? Surely the media wasn't just fear mongering and doing its best to make conservatives look bad....they would never do that.

Who knows, maybe MAGA tards realized that maybe Donald Trump was actually lying?

 

You bragging that thousands of idiots not rioting over one stupid man's ego as if it's some moral victory is like bragging that no one shot up a court building in the name of Voldermort or something. 

[jehurey 3,230]

11 minutes ago, DynamiteCop said:

The NFA forces you to pay a $200 tax stamp, is tied to the weapon in particular and forces federal registration.

 

None of that is ok after point of purchase, I already completed my obligation and 'contract' with the government.

No.

 

In fact, with the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare............you are completely wrong on that concept.

 

The federal government CAN impose taxes. They can do it for programs that require constant funding.

 

Its not a consumer rights issue. The federal law CAN impose taxes on their programs.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

18 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No.

 

In fact, with the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare............you are completely wrong on that concept.

 

The federal government CAN impose taxes. They can do it for programs that require constant funding.

 

Its not a consumer rights issue. The federal law CAN impose taxes on their programs.

I don't care about the tax, you really think that's what this is about?

 

The government doesn't need to know anything about the weapons I have or how many of them I own. It's none of their business.

 

They're non-NFA items I already purchased under the guise of government controls in place at the point of sale. I did my duty, I agreed to their terms, qualified via their controls and legally came into possession as such.

 

This I do not, and did not agree to and tens of millions will not.

 

The only thing that makes sense is grandfathering in existing non-NFA firearms and making any new purchases beholden to the NFA.

 

That's a perfectly reasonable compromise.

[jehurey 3,230]

Just now, DynamiteCop said:

I don't care about the tax, you really think that's what this is about?

 

The government doesn't need to know anything about the weapons I have or how many of them I own. It's none of their business.

 

 

Yes it is, and yes they can make it their business.

 

You don't have any citation that proves otherwise.

 

They literally have the word REGULATION within the second amendment. Them finding out about where the guns are at is part of such regulation.

[jehurey 3,230]

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop said:

 

They're non-NFA items I already purchased under the guise of government controls in place at the point of sale. I did my duty, I agreed to their terms, qualified via their controls and legally came into possession as such.

 

 

Sorry............laws change, regulations change.

 

Unless they specifically put in a grandfather clause, you don't get to say "this ONE TRANSACTION stands, and you can't introduce anything else in the future"

 

They absolutely can.

 

Because it has nothing to do with your guns...........it has to do about your eligibility.

 

You keep on trying to move the argument about the guns as if your GUN has to be eligible for something.

 

YOU are the one that has to maintain eligibility.

 

You can LOSE eligibility.

 

You can lose right now, if you commit a violent crime. In certain cities you can have your gun confiscated if you are being charged with domestic violence.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

Just now, jehurey said:

Yes it is, and yes they can make it their business.

 

You don't have any citation that proves otherwise.

 

They literally have the word REGULATION within the second amendment. Them finding out about where the guns are at is part of such regulation.

You're a moron, you do the government's bidding without even flinching. Pathetic.

 

Want to know why gun control is a failure? Because it's imposed on people not breaking, and with no intention of breaking the law, and you mindless sheep never even attempt to compromise.

 

Honey vs. vinegar. You guys never learn.

[jehurey 3,230]

Just now, DynamiteCop said:

You're a moron, you do the government's bidding without even flinching. Pathetic.

 

Want to know why gun control is a failure? Because it's imposed on people not breaking, and with no intention of breaking the law, and you mindless sheep never even attempt to compromise.

 

Honey vs. vinegar. You guys never learn.

Sorry..............you're not moving the subject over to something else.

 

This is strictly a topic about constitutionality.

 

I asked you to provide an example that a PREVIOUS law supercedes all future laws introduced in the future.

 

If you can't answer that, then you already know that you are wrong.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Sorry............laws change, regulations change.

 

Unless they specifically put in a grandfather clause, you don't get to say "this ONE TRANSACTION stands, and you can't introduce anything else in the future"

 

They absolutely can.

 

Because it has nothing to do with your guns...........it has to do about your eligibility.

 

You keep on trying to move the argument about the guns as if your GUN has to be eligible for something.

 

YOU are the one that has to maintain eligibility.

 

You can LOSE eligibility.

 

You can lose right now, if you commit a violent crime. In certain cities you can have your gun confiscated if you are being charged with domestic violence.

Commiting a crime would make me ineligible based upon a direct action on my part. Me not doing anything differently, and then suddenly what I I legally own is deemed illegal by refusal into forcible entry of something I didn't agree to is not ok. It's tyrannical bullshit.

 

It's in part why we own guns in the first place.

[jehurey 3,230]

Just now, DynamiteCop said:

Commiting a crime would make me ineligible based upon a direct action on my part. Me not doing anything differently, and then suddenly what I I legally own is deemed illegal by refusal into forcible entry of something I didn't agree to is not ok. It's tyrannical bullshit.

 

It's in part why we own guns in the first place.

If you did something that would make you FAIL A BACKGROUND CHECK.

 

You clearly did something.

 

If its found out that you have a severe mental illness..............you technically didn't "do anything", but a trained professional did something in which they declare "this guy is not eligible."

 

If you fail an eye exam.........then you can't drive.

 

There's nothing unfair about that. 

 

Laws should be designed around the fact that your eligibility can change in the future.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

12 minutes ago, jehurey said:

If you did something that would make you FAIL A BACKGROUND CHECK.

 

You clearly did something.

 

If its found out that you have a severe mental illness..............you technically didn't "do anything", but a trained professional did something in which they declare "this guy is not eligible."

 

If you fail an eye exam.........then you can't drive.

 

There's nothing unfair about that. 

 

Laws should be designed around the fact that your eligibility can change in the future.

Eligibility should change based upon an existing standard which is agreed to when making the purchase of your firearm, not arbitrarily down the line when absolutely nothing about your status has changed.

 

Why are you so gungho about this anyway? There's only a few hundred rifle deaths per year, most are suicides, and a large chunk of the remainder are police/military related.

 

Rifle related homicide only accounts for just over 3% of all homicides over the past decade. Bear in mind these are homicides, homicide is not coequal for murder. They're a total non-issue. 

 

Why are you not going nuts about pistols? They're at no threat of the NFA, account for fifteen times the homicides and are responsible for most mass shootings.

 

Things need to make sense Jerry, rifles and "assault weapons" being under attack makes none.

Edited January 21, 2021 by DynamiteCop