Trump Supporters are OK with Treason

justified said:
False. You are only saying this because you are a Trump supporter who does not believe in government or process. Today, the president could sign off on a ban for semi automatic and automatic weapon sales to cease immediately. He has written some whoppers since he's been in office, why not this? Some companies did it without government action. By blaming society or individuals is just denying reality. Trump is not strong enough to stand up to anyone in his base or those that support his base. He is weak. And I'm not saying Obama did any better with the gun lobby. He was equally as weak.
Click to expand...
2nd amendment ring a bell?
 
espola said:
What does that have to do with the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...
The poster I was responding too was bitching that the President had done nothing regarding gun control to keep him safe.
The second amendment doesn't allow the President to outlaw guns...
The second amendment reference was just one of several points in the response.
Jeeezus Magoo get a clue...
 
Last edited:
Lion Eyes said:
The poster I was responding too was bitching that the President had done nothing regarding gun control to keep him safe.
The second amendment doesn't allow the President to outlaw guns...
The ssecond amendment rference was just one of several points in the response.
Jeeewzus Magoo get a clue...
Click to expand...

The 2nd does not prevent Congress from passing laws to regulate guns, and Congress has passed laws giving the President authority to make some decisions regarding guns.

Ignore what the NRA wants you to believe and start over here --

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
justified said:
False. You are only saying this because you are a Trump supporter who does not believe in government or process. Today, the president could sign off on a ban for semi automatic and automatic weapon sales to cease immediately. He has written some whoppers since he's been in office, why not this? Some companies did it without government action. By blaming society or individuals is just denying reality. Trump is not strong enough to stand up to anyone in his base or those that support his base. He is weak. And I'm not saying Obama did any better with the gun lobby. He was equally as weak.
Click to expand...
Executive orders are made daily, doesn't make them legal.
What makes you think any President can change the Constitution with an Executive Order?
I absolutely believe in process and the courts. I didn't vote for Trump or Obama...
I said this before, Trump's a buffoon, I agree with some of what he's done, if all he does is pick another justice to SCOTUS, I'll be fine.
I do find the hysteria by some on the left as most amusing, don't you?
 
espola said:
The 2nd does not prevent Congress from passing laws to regulate guns, and Congress has passed laws giving the President authority to make some decisions regarding guns.

Ignore what the NRA wants you to believe and start over here --

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
As long as they dont try and infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
You ever think about what "bear" means in this context?
 
espola said:
The 2nd does not prevent Congress from passing laws to regulate guns, and Congress has passed laws giving the President authority to make some decisions regarding guns.

Ignore what the NRA wants you to believe and start over here --

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna ignore your priggish lecture Magoo...

I never said congress couldn't pass gun regulation laws Magoo, didn't imply it either.
I did post "Individual states are free to inpose waiting periods and ban certain weapons, we live in one of those states."

Here's what the Supremes had to say in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
From wikipoo:
The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
 
Lion Eyes said:
I'm gonna ignore your priggish lecture Magoo...

I never said congress couldn't pass gun regulation laws Magoo, didn't imply it either.
I did post "Individual states are free to inpose waiting periods and ban certain weapons, we live in one of those states."

Here's what the Supremes had to say in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
From wikipoo:
The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the Heller decision. What is the point of your diversion?
 
espola said:
I don't disagree with the Heller decision. What is the point of your diversion?
Click to expand...
I might ask you the same question Magoo...
You're the one thinkin' I posted or implied something other than what was posted...
I'm simply trying to help you're feeble mind into a bit of clarity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top