Firearms Talk banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,848 Posts
They are sold out of everything like most other ammo suppliers. I love the explanation they posted on Twitter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
818 Posts
Now if every ammo manufacturer would do the same plus refuse to sell to fed LE , gun control would be a thing of the past shortly.
Competition and publicly held companies will keep that from ever happening. Not all businesses have the option of selling to people based on who they voted for.....or say they voted for but I get your point. Stockholders in public companies, as a group, are not groups of people with similar beliefs. The company's I choose to buy stock in need to maximize profits or I invest elsewhere. Companies I invest in change weekly. The only reason I buy stock in companies is to make money, that's it. It worked pretty good for me last year and in January (thank you President Trump for creating a healthy business climate).

I think the Constitution should regulate gun control with exceptions.....such as, I don't think everyone should be able to own a gun. Such as people paroled for committing crimes with guns, child molesters, et al. This could be a long post but not necessary. It a hard world sometimes for us idealists. If everyone would just think the way I do....well, no, nevermind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
Competition and publicly held companies will keep that from ever happening. Not all businesses have the option of selling to people based on who they voted for.....or say they voted for but I get your point. Stockholders in public companies, as a group, are not groups of people with similar beliefs. The company's I choose to buy stock in need to maximize profits or I invest elsewhere. Companies I invest in change weekly. The only reason I buy stock in companies is to make money, that's it. It worked pretty good for me last year and in January (thank you President Trump for creating a healthy business climate).

I think the Constitution should regulate gun control with exceptions.....such as, I don't think everyone should be able to own a gun. Such as people paroled for committing crimes with guns, child molesters, et al. This could be a long post but not necessary. It a hard world sometimes for us idealists. If everyone would just think the way I do....well, no, nevermind.
The constitution does regulate gun control. It flatly prohibits any type of gun control and offers no exceptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The trouble with regulating is that it is, at it's core, an arbitrary line drawn in the sand defining what people can have or the things they can do. The problem is as a society, we rarely, if ever, agree on where that line is to be drawn. Certainly there are many things that we all agree on, such as murder, for example, but many things will always be controversial, regardless of where the line is ultimately placed.

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, they aren't absolute...at least, they aren't absolute in the sense you are free of consequences if you step outside the intended meaning...yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one, for example.

In this era of social media and instant global communications, we are witnessing (if not outright participating in) a large scale struggle, not of rights or freedoms, but of who has the power to decide what is allowed to be said, and by whom. It's a game of power and control. Unfortunately, our 2-party system of government and it's attendant rhetoric has ensured every possible struggle will be "left vs right" in nature. No matter how altruistic an idea is, it will be perverted within our system and emerge out the other side as conservative or liberal. We are conditioned to automatically form a "yay or nay" opinion on something, even when little, if any, facts are known about it. We also seem to excel at ignoring facts when they don't fit our narrative.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,956 Posts
The trouble with regulating is that it is, at it's core, an arbitrary line drawn in the sand defining what people can have or the things they can do. The problem is as a society, we rarely, if ever, agree on where that line is to be drawn.

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, they aren't absolute...at least, they aren't absolute in the sense you are free of consequences if you step outside the intended meaning...yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one, for example. fit our narrative.
That's the key, right there.

In the U.S., the BOR does in fact prohibit government fiddling with people's liberties. They're off-limits. In the case of the RKBA, it flatly states that interference in this space shall not be tolerated. That's the liberty itself. They are absolute, clearly states as being so.

Of course, that's distinctly separate from harms caused by somebody abusing their right to do things. Nobody's protected from that, and nobody gets a bye on harms to others.

For ages, we've had no regulation of rocks, lamp shades, golf clubs, baseball bats and the like. Yet killing somebody or threatening them with bludgeoning is still a crime, given the harms inflicted.

No need to unconstitutionally disregard the BOR or one's sworn oath to do the opposite, in order to hold miscreants accountable for bad acts. Both can be done.

We could bury every wayward legislator along with every RKBA-related "law" on the books tomorrow, yet still be equally capable of holding people fully accountable for harms committed against others via murder, robbery and similar crimes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Yeah, that's the point, but instead of concerning ourselves with getting on with our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, too many malcontents are dead set on trying to redefine what actually constitutes denial of their rights as a tool to get what they want...and by that, they want laws and protections, even if they trample our rights in that process.

Fact is, the Constitution is pretty straight forward, and you don't need a degree in English to understand it, but too many people do their damndest to twist it to their own ends. Fortunately we have the SCOTUS as it is their job to interpret it, but as mere humans themselves, they too are not immune to political leanings.

In fact, it would seem, that for the most part, what actually ails us are the politicians. Reminds me of a quote (I'm sure most have seen it, but it IS fitting): "Diapers and politicians should be changed often...and for the same reason."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
Actually its not SCOTUS job to interpret the constitution. Its their job to examine laws passed by gov and see if those laws run afoul of the COTUS as written.
Spelled out plainly by Justice Marshall of the SCOTUS the first time SCOTUS overturned an act of congress.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
That's the key, right there.

In the U.S., the BOR does in fact prohibit government fiddling with people's liberties. They're off-limits. In the case of the RKBA, it flatly states that interference in this space shall not be tolerated. That's the liberty itself. They are absolute, clearly states as being so.

Of course, that's distinctly separate from harms caused by somebody abusing their right to do things. Nobody's protected from that, and nobody gets a bye on harms to others.

For ages, we've had no regulation of rocks, lamp shades, golf clubs, baseball bats and the like. Yet killing somebody or threatening them with bludgeoning is still a crime, given the harms inflicted.

No need to unconstitutionally disregard the BOR or one's sworn oath to do the opposite, in order to hold miscreants accountable for bad acts. Both can be done.

We could bury every wayward legislator along with every RKBA-related "law" on the books tomorrow, yet still be equally capable of holding people fully accountable for harms committed against others via murder, robbery and similar crimes.
QFT

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
Actually, it is their job.

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

Have to respecfully disagree. Their job as put forth in every early historic writing like the one i provided is to interpret laws to see if they violate the COTUS. As justice marshall and others made crystal clear.

They have no constitutional authority to change anything about the COTUS as written by " interpretation" which means the COTUS means anything 9 judges want it too.

There is a precribed method for changing the COTUS, but it doesnt include the SCOTUS or its " interpretation" of the COTUS.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,860 Posts
It is all advertising, it is hype, it works because you saw it repeated here. They are pandering to their customers. They have a right to do that. The Constitution does not ban azzholes.

I wouldn't want to do business with any company who required me to tell them how I voted as a requirement of the honor of spending my money with them; I don't need anyone's **** that bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kfox75

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Have to respecfully disagree. Their job as put forth in every early historic writing like the one i provided is to interpret laws to see if they violate the COTUS. As justice marshall and others made crystal clear.

They have no constitutional authority to change anything about the COTUS as written by " interpretation" which means the COTUS means anything 9 judges want it too.

There is a precribed method for changing the COTUS, but it doesnt include the SCOTUS or its " interpretation" of the COTUS.
In order to interpret law, they must also weigh it against, hence, interpret the COTUS. You can't have one without the other. There are any number of searchable documents, articles, etc, that clearly state their job is one of interpretation of the Constitution.

Heck, the famous ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller is as clear cut an example as you can get. The SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean it protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

I think mnost here will agree that the meaning of the 2nd has been a source of controversy for many years.

Amending the COTUS is a mutually exclusive process as SCOTUS does not alter or amend it, they interpret it and apply the interpretation to case law they choose to take (grant certiorari (or “cert”) when it agrees to decide a case).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
In order to interpret law, they must also weigh it against, hence, interpret the COTUS. You can't have one without the other. There are any number of searchable documents, articles, etc, that clearly state their job is one of interpretation of the Constitution.

Heck, the famous ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller is as clear cut an example as you can get. The SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean it protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

I think mnost here will agree that the meaning of the 2nd has been a source of controversy for many years.

Amending the COTUS is a mutually exclusive process as SCOTUS does not alter or amend it, they interpret it and apply the interpretation to case law they choose to take (grant certiorari (or “cert”) when it agrees to decide a case).
Believe as you wish.
I highly doubt youll find many agree that the meaning of the 2A neeeds interpretation.
One clearly written sentence that prohibits gov from interfering with the RTKABA.

NOTHING to interpret unless one pulls garbage out of thin air .

All gun regulations violate that one sentence .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
If there is nothing to interpret in the Constitution, then why do we have a SCOTUS?
Good question.
Until Madison vs Marbury SCOTUS had not ever entered the arena of judicial review of acts of congress. It wasnt and isnt an authority granted them by the COTUS .
Until then it had heard disputes between states etc. And actually wasnt very busy at all going long stretches of time with no case to judge.

Judge Marshall in a political move in Madison vs Marbury did rule on an act of congress, taking an authority SCOTUS until then did not have.

But even Judge Marshall insisted in the decision and personal writings that laws must be examonef and judged against the constitution. Not massage the constitution to fit the law.
SCOTUS has been out of control for over a century issuing rulings based on nothing but their political majority.

The 2A is a prime example of a crystal clear prohibition on gov interference in any way with the RTKABA.
Yet SCOTUS has ignored the 2A inserting its own made up out of thin air words never in the 2A or even close , to justify rulings that would cause the founders to have reached for musket and powder long ago to undo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
But Marshall basically denounced that authority as passed by Congress. Congress attempted to expand SCOTUS's authority beyond what was in the COTUS, but they demured on the grounds that the American courts have the power to invalidate laws found to violate the Constitution. SCOTUS's "power" was not inflated as a result of this case, they did not take or end up with any more authority than they had previously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
But Marshall basically denounced that authority as passed by Congress. Congress attempted to expand SCOTUS's authority beyond what was in the COTUS, but they demured on the grounds that the American courts have the power to invalidate laws found to violate the Constitution. SCOTUS's "power" was not inflated as a result of this case, they did not take or end up with any more authority than they had previously.
It was however thr first time and continued since that SCOTUS claimed the field of " judicial review".

Point being the constitution was not written to be interpreted. Only those who want to violate its limits claim it needs to be.

It says, very clearly what it means and its primary intent was to limit gov power.
SCOTUS job is to take acts of congress and by holding them to the COTUS as written determine if that law runs afoul of the COTUS as written. Not massage the constitution thru " interpretation" to fit the law in question as it has done thousands of times.

Again im hopeful with several originalist judges now on the court, many laws , including gun regulations will be struck down as the legalese fantasys they are.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top