Gun Laws Unconstituatioal

[JonathanAtopia]

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/ ... ointments/

Finally, something has found a flaw in Obama's gun laws

[Khadgar]

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

Finally, something has found a flaw in Obama's gun laws

You know, there's been five gun threads in the last week, this could have gone in any of them.

[Divair]

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

Finally, something has found a flaw in Obama's gun laws

You know, there's been five gun threads in the last week, this could have gone in any of them.

Maybe we should just have a gun control/violence megathread.

[Allie Youngblood]

It doesn't even mention one thing ABOUT gun laws, this was about illegal recess appointments.

Did you even READ what it said, or did you just jump onto the word "unconstitutional" and hung on?

[Sophian]

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

Finally, something has found a flaw in Obama's gun laws

"Are trying to tell us that you're a republican who hates black people and women's rights?" ~ Fan-boy of the democratic party

[Avenio]

You know, there's been five gun threads in the last week, this could have gone in any of them.

But then OP here couldn't massage his own ego by making a one-sentence thread about every development.

[Venaleria]

Oh come on...Lets weigh these together:

Getting killed or being safe from weapons that could essentially kill you in your tracks...

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that assault weapons are dangerous to the community and do not need to be used in any form of hunting/self protection or gunning of any sort. Besides, I know that hunters use rifles, shotguns, or bows for their hunting and NOT serious assault weapons like the ones killers used in recent mass-murders. Trust me, nobody has any need for a gun like that expect for the law enforcement agencies and army.

[Divair]

It doesn't even mention one thing ABOUT gun laws, this was about illegal recess appointments.

Did you even READ what it said, or did you just jump onto the word "unconstitutional" and hung on?

Funny how no one has mentioned this yet.

[Allie Youngblood]

It doesn't even mention one thing ABOUT gun laws, this was about illegal recess appointments.

Did you even READ what it said, or did you just jump onto the word "unconstitutional" and hung on?

Funny how no one has mentioned this yet.

I'm surprised, I thought NSG was better than that and READ links. Even a precursory glance would have tipped someone off.

[Grave_n_idle]

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

Finally, something has found a flaw in Obama's gun laws

Perhaps you posted the wrong link?

That's about recess appointments. Not gun laws.

Seriously how long did it take you from seeing the word 'unconstitutional', to creating a thread? Not long enough to read the article, I'm guessing.

Or to spell-check.

[Xeng He]

Oh gods...

1. Honestly, looking through it, it doesn't seem like the National Labor Relations Board was doing much anyway. Just minor decisions. So at least the government isn't going to be slowed down any significant amount...
2. I really hate people who declare something "unconstitutional" and therefore wrong. The two are not equivalent.
3. But otherwise, yeah, I don't get what this has to do with gun control.

[Zutroy]

BANNING all firearms would be unconstitutional. Regulating different categories? Not so much.

Deal with it.

[Allie Youngblood]

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

Finally, something has found a flaw in Obama's gun laws

Perhaps you posted the wrong link?

That's about recess appointments. Not gun laws.

Seriously how long did it take you from seeing the word 'unconstitutional', to creating a thread? Not long enough to read the article, I'm guessing.

Or to spell-check.

Beat you to it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Perhaps you posted the wrong link?

That's about recess appointments. Not gun laws.

Seriously how long did it take you from seeing the word 'unconstitutional', to creating a thread? Not long enough to read the article, I'm guessing.

Or to spell-check.

Beat you to it.

I'm willing to give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they had two tabs open, and posted the wrong one.

It happens. Clearly, he or she is in a rush.

[Xeng He]

Beat you to it.

My honest theory is that the fellow wanted a laugh and figured no one on here would actually check the link. So he decided to start up a gun control debate that, ultimately, is based on a reference that doesn't exist.

Which is 10/10, to me.



...did anyone else just realize how horrible their sense of humour is?

[Laerod]

Funny how no one has mentioned this yet.

I'm surprised, I thought NSG was better than that and READ links. Even a precursory glance would have tipped someone off.

Makes sense why they didn't post it in a gun thread now though.

[Tsuntion]

Funny how no one has mentioned this yet.

I'm surprised, I thought NSG was better than that and READ links. Even a precursory glance would have tipped someone off.

You haven't seen the worst of the crap people try to give during debates, clearly. I recall one person who found a source which basically said "Yeah, you know that claim you're making? It's wrong." in the second paragraph yet tried to say it talked about the claim and supported it.

[Khadgar]

I'm surprised, I thought NSG was better than that and READ links. Even a precursory glance would have tipped someone off.

You haven't seen the worst of the crap people try to give during debates, clearly. I recall one person who found a source which basically said "Yeah, you know that claim you're making? It's wrong." in the second paragraph yet tried to say it talked about the claim and supported it.

YGO was king of sources that disproved his own claims. Usually somewhere in the second paragraph.

[Allie Youngblood]

Beat you to it.

I'm willing to give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they had two tabs open, and posted the wrong one.

It happens. Clearly, he or she is in a rush.

This is the guy who used to make spam topics in Diplomacy and stuff. I'm not so sure this is accidental.

Beat you to it.

My honest theory is that the fellow wanted a laugh and figured no one on here would actually check the link. So he decided to start up a gun control debate that, ultimately, is based on a reference that doesn't exist.

Which is 10/10, to me.

Good point. In which case, wouldn't this be trolling or debating on a false premise?

I'm surprised, I thought NSG was better than that and READ links. Even a precursory glance would have tipped someone off.

Makes sense why they didn't post it in a gun thread now though.

Yeah, people would have torn it apart.

I'm surprised, I thought NSG was better than that and READ links. Even a precursory glance would have tipped someone off.

You haven't seen the worst of the crap people try to give during debates, clearly. I recall one person who found a source which basically said "Yeah, you know that claim you're making? It's wrong." in the second paragraph yet tried to say it talked about the claim and supported it.

No, I've seen that. This happens a lot in debates, I remember someone was arguing that sex in humans was primarily for reproduction and they linked the Wikipedia page on sexual intercourse as a source. Unfortunately for that person, I had read said page a while back and I knew that it in fact has a section where it concludes that sex in humans was for social bonding.

Then we have Hippo saying that left libertarianism didn't exist, and his source contradicted the whole thing from the start.

[Laerod]

Makes sense why they didn't post it in a gun thread now though.

Yeah, people would have torn it apart.

Well, it's got nothing to do with guns, is what I was getting at. Had they put it in a gun thread, plenty of support would have been mobilized.

[Allie Youngblood]

Yeah, people would have torn it apart.

Well, it's got nothing to do with guns, is what I was getting at. Had they put it in a gun thread, plenty of support would have been mobilized.

I really dislike the misleading title. It's a false premise.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Seems an awful lot of badly thought out threads tonight.

[Farnhamia]

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

Finally, something has found a flaw in Obama's gun laws

That article has nothing whatsoever to do with "Obama's gun laws." It talks about a ruling from a federal court that the President's recess appointments were invalid because the Senate was never recessed. No "gun laws" have been passed.

[Death Metal]

BANNING all firearms would be unconstitutional.

Actually, no. By the letter banning all firearms would be okay. Banning all weapons would not be however. Note the phrasing in the second amendment. ARMS. Not firearms, not guns.

[Zutroy]

BANNING all firearms would be unconstitutional.

Actually, no. By the letter banning all firearms would be okay. Banning all weapons would not be however. Note the phrasing in the second amendment. ARMS. Not firearms, not guns.

Clever. Very clever.

However, what it means in this system is a mixture of what it literally says and how it's been interpreted by courts in the past and present, and I believe the consensus has been that "arms" doesn't refer to melee weapons. I could be wrong, though.