Advertisement
by The boogaloo empire » Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:01 pm
by Grinning Dragon » Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:10 pm
by Telconi » Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:32 pm
Kowani wrote:Telconi wrote:
Your disdain for human rights is common knowledge, you don't need to shout at the sky any time people somewhere enjoy some freedom.
Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?Ors Might wrote:I mean, sure, if you want to argue that firearms won’t ever be used in a revolution, you can go ahead and do that. It’s a really weird argument that relies upon the baseless assumption that the factors that lead to revolution cannot and will not be replicated in modern society but you can make it.
Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.Rojava Free State wrote:
That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.
No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.
by Hurtful Thoughts » Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:06 pm
Rojava Free State wrote:Kowani wrote:Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?
Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.
No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.
And my rationale is to defend myself from everything ranging from the common crook up to a crooked cop. I think that's a perfectly sound rationale to have a pistol.
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by The Chuck » Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:11 pm
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by Hurtful Thoughts » Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:16 pm
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Gun Manufacturers » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:48 am
Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...
Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo
Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.
Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:56 am
by The Chuck » Sat Apr 25, 2020 7:55 am
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:04 am
by The Chuck » Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:56 am
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by Grinning Dragon » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:48 pm
The argument that scared DOJ into dropping felony charges is that:
1. Federal authority to regulate machine guns is derived from their authority to tax them.
2. Since 1986, it is has been unlawful to make them for private ownership.
3. If they will not collect that tax, do they have authority to regulate their possession?
Apparently this is a side effect of ACA which required you to pay a tax for not being insured. The penalty was reduced to 0 recently by Congress, so the individual mandate no longer has any basis, because it was derived from Congressional taxing authority. It appears that DOJ has figured what that my friend Stephen Halbrook argued in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory (C.D. Ill. 1991) could sink machine gun regulation, very quickly:
As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.
The U.S. Attorney did not appeal that decision, likely afraid it would become precedent for the whole circuit.
by Diopolis » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:51 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:Well check this out.
A prosecution for unlawful machine gun possession was granted cert by the Supreme Court--and the Justice Dept. filed a motion applying to vacate the judgment and drop the indictment. (It appears that the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the indictment before this went to trial.) Huh?The argument that scared DOJ into dropping felony charges is that:
1. Federal authority to regulate machine guns is derived from their authority to tax them.
2. Since 1986, it is has been unlawful to make them for private ownership.
3. If they will not collect that tax, do they have authority to regulate their possession?
Apparently this is a side effect of ACA which required you to pay a tax for not being insured. The penalty was reduced to 0 recently by Congress, so the individual mandate no longer has any basis, because it was derived from Congressional taxing authority. It appears that DOJ has figured what that my friend Stephen Halbrook argued in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory (C.D. Ill. 1991) could sink machine gun regulation, very quickly:
As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.
The U.S. Attorney did not appeal that decision, likely afraid it would become precedent for the whole circuit.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:09 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:Well check this out.
A prosecution for unlawful machine gun possession was granted cert by the Supreme Court--and the Justice Dept. filed a motion applying to vacate the judgment and drop the indictment. (It appears that the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the indictment before this went to trial.) Huh?The argument that scared DOJ into dropping felony charges is that:
1. Federal authority to regulate machine guns is derived from their authority to tax them.
2. Since 1986, it is has been unlawful to make them for private ownership.
3. If they will not collect that tax, do they have authority to regulate their possession?
Apparently this is a side effect of ACA which required you to pay a tax for not being insured. The penalty was reduced to 0 recently by Congress, so the individual mandate no longer has any basis, because it was derived from Congressional taxing authority. It appears that DOJ has figured what that my friend Stephen Halbrook argued in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory (C.D. Ill. 1991) could sink machine gun regulation, very quickly:
As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.
The U.S. Attorney did not appeal that decision, likely afraid it would become precedent for the whole circuit.
by Pax Nerdvana » Sat Apr 25, 2020 7:51 pm
Diopolis wrote:Grinning Dragon wrote:Well check this out.
A prosecution for unlawful machine gun possession was granted cert by the Supreme Court--and the Justice Dept. filed a motion applying to vacate the judgment and drop the indictment. (It appears that the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the indictment before this went to trial.) Huh?
Here's to hoping Machine guns wind up legalized in some capacity over all this.
by Big Jim P » Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:27 pm
Pax Nerdvana wrote:Diopolis wrote:Here's to hoping Machine guns wind up legalized in some capacity over all this.
Let's hope so.The Two Jerseys wrote:Some people say you should keep your yard landscaped so that you can see any intruders trying to break in.
I think it would be more effective if you let the grass grow chest high and blast "Fortunate Son" at maximum volume...
And boobytrap the grass. Better yet, turn your yard into a thick forest, and learn it like the back of your hand. They won't know what hit them.
by Big Jim P » Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:31 pm
Kowani wrote:Telconi wrote:
Your disdain for human rights is common knowledge, you don't need to shout at the sky any time people somewhere enjoy some freedom.
Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?Ors Might wrote:I mean, sure, if you want to argue that firearms won’t ever be used in a revolution, you can go ahead and do that. It’s a really weird argument that relies upon the baseless assumption that the factors that lead to revolution cannot and will not be replicated in modern society but you can make it.
Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.Rojava Free State wrote:
That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.
No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.
by The Alma Mater » Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:36 pm
Big Jim P wrote:Kowani wrote:Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?
Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.
No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.
No one needs to rationalize the exercise of a right. The onus for rationalization lies with those who would restrict those rights.
by Telconi » Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:18 pm
The Alma Mater wrote:Big Jim P wrote:
No one needs to rationalize the exercise of a right. The onus for rationalization lies with those who would restrict those rights.
The rationalisation seems to be "the right exists so the people can defend themselves and others against oppression and evil; but in practice the people do not use it that way and do harm"
Seems to be. It is not mine *strokes his extensive collection of sharp and pointy things*
by Hurtful Thoughts » Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:45 pm
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Telconi » Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:34 am
by Pax Nerdvana » Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:14 am
Big Jim P wrote:Pax Nerdvana wrote:Let's hope so.
And boobytrap the grass. Better yet, turn your yard into a thick forest, and learn it like the back of your hand. They won't know what hit them.
Place tannerite traps where you think you might need them (especially to cover those areas an intruder might find cover). Then bang away.
by Telconi » Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:28 am
by The Chuck » Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:44 pm
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Eahland, Experina, Foxyshire, Ifreann, La Xinga, New Ziedrich, Trump ALMIGHTY, Umeria
Advertisement