If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Reagan's signing of the Mulford was a racist response to black patriots openly exercising their 2d Amendment rights. Small surprise why the far right supported that act of racist treason.

 

The Democrats supported that stupid law too. Every infringement on the RKBA in the last 20 years had come from Democrats

 

there is a promise inherent in american citizenship. the mob cannot erase this promise nor can any authoritarian bureaucracy, the promise is that each of us will always be able to defend ourselves from any oppression. does this answer the op's question?

 

They are black supremacist (black panthers, for the record) Who marched, armed to the state capital. If the Klan marched, with arms to a state capital, the left would blow a rod.

 

You cant have one side believing highly in law and order while the other side is so damn corrupt that there is no law that they abide by .

 

That is utter nonsense.

 

In my opinion? Well... thanks for asking.

I have held many times, and have opened many threads and participated in as many holding that every court decision, at any level, should first look at the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble, though in and of itself is not legislation,, tells us why legislation even exists. Ultimately, it states why this nation was constituted in the first place. What the purpose of the laws are and should be. Any judicial decision that can't live up to that purpose should be immediately changed.

In other words, any constitutional decision which does not help us "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[sic] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", should be rejected. And every decision that does support the above, should be enacted. It's that simple.

That is the "golden standard". After that, precedent, the letter of the law as written, expert opinion... and so on..., all that can be taken into account. But the above is the ultimate moral principle.

 

It was not a strawman, its a key on your keyboard that capitalizes things ffs.

Not maybe, I'm explaining how I got to my statement. Yes! = enthusiastic agreement. I'm not the only one who got that out of it either so you can drop the deflection and get to the meat of the questions. Let go your false outrage.

 

You realize I turned 30 this year... right? How old are you skippy?

 

Glad you admit constitutionality doesn't matter to you.

 

They mostly weren't parading around, they were just open carrying in their neighborhoods and no longer easy targets for harassment by police. It was bold faced racism.

 

Beat me to it.

Truth: I didn't hear any of them complaining when he did it and many of you (grabbers) tout it as "reasonable" gun control so...


Though it was racist and **** Reagan and the NRA as not the heroes people revere them to be

 

When government violates the Bill of Rights it becomes illegitimate.
Of course, illegitimate totalitarian fascist/communist regimes have been able to enforce gun bans.

So, I suppose, in that context, your plan is feasible.

 

Unless gun confiscation is part of a transition to a totalitarian police state it will have no impact on any felon who wants to obtain a firearm.

Any law imposed by other forms of government that could disarm those who obey the law would be an incentive for violent felons to arm themselves.

 

So no original intent? Basically just subjective opinion?

 

The Klan wasn't targeted by the government as were the Panthers.

But Tea Partyers carried weapons and nobody from the unprincipled far right objected. As usual, the same double standards always on display.

 

Not all felons should be felons.

 

The Preamble to the Constitution IS the original intent! What I wrote is the only objective way to analyze Constitutional disputes.

 

You can link through the above post, it has the whole string. You may begin addressing any or all of the points contained therein.

 

Its objective to use a subjective moral decision?

 

So if you and I have a different opinion on how to secure blessings of liberty how do we resolve that?

 

Even though the same ammunition is used non assault weapons. The .223 round is used all sorts of rifles and even pistols. My .223 is a bolt action rifle.

 

That sounds right for anyone, hence why the left is so adamant about restricting gun ownership by going and passing unconstitutional laws. You guys believe that the constitution may one day change and our rights for protection will be stripped away. What you fail to realize that the 2A is the law and the left does everything the can to interpret the wording anyway they want. Even Kamala pretty much disregards the constitution with her campaign promises. You want to lambast conservatives of the 2A for a straw man you guys are creating and ignore what you guys are actually doing.

 

So the FBI never targeted the Klan? Sure.
Did Tea Partiers march, with weapons, on the state Capital? No, no they did not.
If you think the Black Panthers are "patriots", I see what time it is.

 

I am not the left and have voted for more conservatives in my life than liberals
I do not believe gun rights should be stripped but just some common sense proposals
I don’t like Kamala
What strawman did I create?

When you have that many assumptions in a single post one starts to wonder if you have a point beyond irrational blabber