Utah Sheriffs warn Obama

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

We wouldn't have these situations if Obama just followed the constitution.

[Wisconsin9]

We wouldn't have these situations if Obama just followed the constitution.

When did he break it?

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

We wouldn't have these situations if Obama just followed the constitution.

When did he break it?

When he implemented Obamacare, and now he's breaking it again by trying to pass the assault gun law.

[Occupied Deutschland]

We wouldn't have these situations if Obama just followed the constitution.

When did he break it?

Actually, now when people say that they have at least one ruling to go on.

[Wisconsin9]

When did he break it?

Actually, now when people say that they have at least one ruling to go on.

"has been used by Presidents for the past 90 years"

Hypocrisy, yay!

When did he break it?

When he implemented Obamacare, and now he's breaking it again by trying to pass the assault gun law.

1. Sauce plox.
2. The assault gun ban would only ban certain guns. The 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms, nowhere does it state which ones.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

2. The assault gun ban would only ban certain guns. The 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms, nowhere does it state which ones.

"shall not be infringed"

[Dyakovo]

When did he break it?

When he implemented Obamacare, and now he's breaking it again by trying to pass the assault gun law.

Obamacare is constitutional, as are restrictions on gun ownership.

[Wisconsin9]

2. The assault gun ban would only ban certain guns. The 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms, nowhere does it state which ones.

"shall not be infringed"

Again, it's not an infringement on your right to bear arms, it's only to ban certain ones. And I'm still waiting on a source for Obamacare being unconstitutional.

[Occupied Deutschland]

[snip]
2. The assault gun ban would only ban certain guns. The 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms, nowhere does it state which ones.

But of course.

Likewise, free speech only refers to actually speaking, doesn't it. I mean, the first amendment never states that writing or any other form of communication is speech.

[Death Metal]

2. The assault gun ban would only ban certain guns. The 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms, nowhere does it state which ones.

"shall not be infringed"

"infringed" does not mean what you think it means.

[Wisconsin9]

[snip]
2. The assault gun ban would only ban certain guns. The 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms, nowhere does it state which ones.

But of course.

Likewise, free speech only refers to actually speaking, doesn't it. I mean, the first amendment never states that writing or any other form of communication is speech.

Well played...

[Occupied Deutschland]

"shall not be infringed"

"infringed" does not mean what you think it means.

Google "Infringed" > First result > second definition: "Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on; "infringe on his privacy".

Seems to mean exactly what he suggests it does.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

"shall not be infringed"

Again, it's not an infringement on your right to bear arms, it's only to ban certain ones. And I'm still waiting on a source for Obamacare being unconstitutional.

It's right beneath your nose.

[Wisconsin9]

Again, it's not an infringement on your right to bear arms, it's only to ban certain ones. And I'm still waiting on a source for Obamacare being unconstitutional.

It's right beneath your nose.

Then you'll have to point it out to me because I'm not seeing it.

[Dyakovo]

Again, it's not an infringement on your right to bear arms, it's only to ban certain ones. And I'm still waiting on a source for Obamacare being unconstitutional.

It's right beneath your nose.

Translation: I've got nothing, so instead I'm going to spout nonsense.

[Dyakovo]

It's right beneath your nose.

Then you'll have to point it out to me because I'm not seeing it.

He declared it unconstitutional, therefore it is.
*nods*

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

It's right beneath your nose.

Then you'll have to point it out to me because I'm not seeing it.

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.

[Wisconsin9]

Then you'll have to point it out to me because I'm not seeing it.

He declared it unconstitutional, therefore it is.
*nods*

YEAH! UP YOURS, SUPREME COURT, I HAVE MORE LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND AUTHORITY THAN YOU DO!

[Death Metal]

"infringed" does not mean what you think it means.

Google "Infringed" > First result > second definition: "Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on; "infringe on his privacy".

Seems to mean exactly what he suggests it does.

Not when it comes to constitutional law. See that free speech cannot be infringed, but can be restricted (by slander laws).

EDIT- Technically speaking, a law banning all weapons except sabers could be constitutional by the letter because you are still allowed to have weapons. It would be up to the Supreme Court of course, but you have to remember that the entire point of having a Supreme Court is that the Constitution isn't truly absolute and is open to interpretation. And those interpretations themselves have been overturned in the past. An extremely pacifist SCOTUS might agree to only allowing wiffle bats as weapons.

[Dyakovo]

Then you'll have to point it out to me because I'm not seeing it.

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.

How, exactly, does that support your claim that Obamacare is unconstitutional?

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

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.

How, exactly, does that support your claim that Obamacare is unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional in that the penalty is a direct tax and must be apportioned which I might add that it is not

[Wisconsin9]

Then you'll have to point it out to me because I'm not seeing it.

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.

Again, you'd still have the right to bear arms, just not all of them. Just like you don't have the right to own the cannon on an F-16.

And for the record, if the Supreme Court rules something to be constitutional then it is, regardless of what you or anyone else may say.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

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.

Again, you'd still have the right to bear arms, just not all of them. Just like you don't have the right to own the cannon on an F-16.

And for the record, if the Supreme Court rules something to be constitutional then it is, regardless of what you or anyone else may say.

Not at all. I do have the right to own a cannon or an F-16. The constitution grants me that right, and for the federal Government to tell me that I can't is unconstitutional.

[Wisconsin9]

Again, you'd still have the right to bear arms, just not all of them. Just like you don't have the right to own the cannon on an F-16.

And for the record, if the Supreme Court rules something to be constitutional then it is, regardless of what you or anyone else may say.

Not at all. I do have the right to own a cannon or an F-16. The constitution grants me that right, and for the federal Government to tell me that I can't is unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, the Supreme Court says that it's constitutional, because they literally define what is and isn't.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Not at all. I do have the right to own a cannon or an F-16. The constitution grants me that right, and for the federal Government to tell me that I can't is unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, the Supreme Court says that it's constitutional, because they literally define what is and isn't.

Even if the supreme court rules that I'm no longer able to give my opinion, because they disagree with it is, is constitutional, it isn't constitutional. They can kick, scream and whine all that they want to, but if something isn't constitutional, it aint constitutional. If that were the case, then the Supreme Court could just alter the definition of words and that would be end of all be alls "The right to free speech" in essence could mean "You have no right to free speech" and the court could interpret that as its meaning.

Words mean what they say, and the second amendment clearly gives me to right to bear even nuclear arms if I'm capable of doing so.