Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Summary of the Legislation on the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 220 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 6:23:27 AM PST
Frankenzubaz says:
The Nuge prefers a bow. Like a man.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 6:10:23 PM PST
Seems you've got it all figured out, like I said, no reason to continue talking.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 2:12:43 PM PST
A fair point, in spirit.

But a lot of misdemeanors shouldn't be grounds for denying employment in the first place...and they shouldn't be grounds for denying gun ownership, either.

Also, I thought misdemeanors effectively went away after 7 years in most states.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 2:06:47 PM PST
I agree that guns not being used should be locked in a safe, with trigger locks. It is a simple deterrent, especially for stuff regarding accidental shootings.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 2:06:02 PM PST
Nightmare says:
Ok, I'm going to break it down:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction."

So, first he's explaining that the common defense and general welfare clause are not open ended allowances for the government to make any laws that might fall under such general categories. Agreed?

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"

Here he points out the the specifics of the general terms of the general welfare clause immediately follow.

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?"

Again, the particular powers are included to detail what the general terms actually refer to. Why insert the particulars if they are understood to follow from the general? They don't. The particulars ARE the limit to which the government can legislate on those general terms.

"But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity"

Finally, the author points out that the particulars explain and qualify the general terms. The general terms merely give an understanding as to the reasoning behind allowing the government the particular powers it has.

This seems rather evident to me. I don't see any other way to interpret what the author of Federalist # 41 is saying.

Posted on Dec 27, 2012 2:05:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 27, 2012 2:05:24 PM PST
got mayo?™ says:
You can't get a decent job these days without a back round check, and if you have a misdemeanor on record from when you where 18 and wet behind the ears ...you can be denied employment....10, 20, 30. 40 yrs later.

Just saying, the same should at least apply to to gun ownership.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 2:04:09 PM PST
Because the government is incredibly inefficient and loves redundant paperwork. You know this!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 2:02:33 PM PST
"They are going to use this list as a basis for cause for unlawful search and seizure"

If they change the laws, it wouldn't be unlawful.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 2:01:08 PM PST
FBI got a file on you
Think they don't, but they g-damn do!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 2:00:15 PM PST
That is absurd.

"Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration"

However, I'm not sure this means you have to pay a fee. I think it may be more along the lines of Congress has to provide the ATF with additional funding.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:56:59 PM PST
Looks to me like the author is saying that the federal governments power is not unlimited. I don't see anything specifically proscribing the powers except a few examples such as not banning the press.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:55:35 PM PST
Smarty says:
First time I heard about that town in Georgia, I was blown away.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:54:57 PM PST
Voice of god says:
"Theres a reason the right to own a firearm comes after the freedom of speech...because the sheeple like you will need it protected or restored."

The 3rd Amendment comes next. Is banning the quartering of soldiers there to protect gun rights?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:54:13 PM PST
Nightmare says:
Then what do you think it's saying?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:53:00 PM PST
LOL i sent him a reply similar to that...he dosent have a clue on the issue. He never thought to look at state and local laws already on the books by the heap load! Some of the local laws actually require you to own a gun!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:52:56 PM PST
Not from what I just read, no.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:50:59 PM PST
Nightmare says:
So, you don't believe that Federalist # 41 is saying that the Federal Government's powers (specifically the law making powers of Congress) are limited to what is listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution? Am I reading your comment right?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:50:34 PM PST
Yeah lock the gun away so tight you cant use it to deter a crime committed against you or another person. More laws and funding for corrupt government departments wont prevent crimes from being committed with guns. Theres a reason the right to own a firearm comes after the freedom of speech...because the sheeple like you will need it protected or restored. Your second paragraph shows how clueless you are to the issue at large seeing that there are book loads of laws on a state by state basis and even county basis concerning storage. There are even some counties that require you to own a firearm! God forbid?!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:48:17 PM PST
I read the post yes, and I don't agree with what you said here.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:47:39 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 12:49:27 AM PST
Voice of god says:
You're right. If you didn't bother reading the OP carefully before responding to it, why would I expect you to do it with my posts?

You're going to keep imagining me as the embodiment of every anti-gun argument you can dream up to disagree with. I just don't care enough anymore to keep telling you that I'm not your straw man.

I give up. You win. I want to come to your house tonight and steal all your guns and throw them in a volcano, and I want to take notes while I do it so I can help with the coming Orwellian government invasion. Make sure to wait up all night with your finger on the trigger and the gun pointed at the door. I'll see you then.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:43:52 PM PST
Nightmare says:
The Federalist that I quoted comes directly from the source. Did you read that? It makes it quite clear the the Federal Government has now power that was not explicitly given to it in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:43:30 PM PST
Is that a 1 or a -1?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:43:01 PM PST
JJ4prez says:
Punk - 1

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:41:57 PM PST
You are taking someones interpretation of the author's intentions who is not the author and ascribing them as the actual intentions of the author. It's a closed circle, there is no arguing because there is no room to put in a different viewpoint. Hence, no point in continuing the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 1:38:57 PM PST
Nightmare says:
That is not circular logic. It's the only logical way to read anything, as far as I know. If you don't interpret writing based on what the author intended, then how do you interpret it.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  38
Total posts:  220
Initial post:  Dec 27, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions