mcarterbrown.com  

Paintball News The latest in paintball news brought to you by the oldest independent publication in paintball and the best paintball site on the web - The Paintball News and MCB

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-15-2006, 07:24 PM   #41 (permalink)
GWC Lifetime Member
 
Al Ray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Quote:
That's why the nra took almost a year before this issue was brought to the attention of their members --> Must not be that important to them or their cause.
Ever notice how long it takes anything to get published, then add that the NRA has there hands full as it is.
Al Ray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2006, 02:38 PM   #42 (permalink)
Active Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drum View Post
We just can't get enough of that funky stuff.
I'm feelin' it! I'm feelin' it!
BlindeSeher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2006, 12:25 AM   #43 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
HTRN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006

They're bent out of shape over .177 caliber BB guns?

Geeze, I wonder how they'd react to my .729 cal air rifle project.


HTRN
__________________
EGO partum , proinde EGO sum
HTRN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2006, 01:17 PM   #44 (permalink)
I've porked many
 
pillage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Yorktown, Virginia

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTRN View Post
They're bent out of shape over .177 caliber BB guns?

Geeze, I wonder how they'd react to my .729 cal air rifle project.


HTRN
I bet they would get their panties in a wad about a 50 caliber air rifle as well.
http://www.airgunsbbguns.com/Career_...gon-slayer.htm I'm guessing the rifleing wouldn't allow 50 caliber paintballs.
__________________
If meat is murder, I'll have a beer with the murder please.

My Feedback Thread[/SIZE][/SIZE]
pillage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2006, 03:52 AM   #45 (permalink)
Fleshy-Headed Mutant
 
PolarMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by shartley View Post
I have always advocating amending the Constitution to include simple GUN OWNERSHIP, because as it is written now it does not cover GUN OWNERSHIP in the broad sense. Only if you slice and dice it does the Constitution say what people want it to say. And this is coming from a strong supporter of the right to own firearms for ANY purpose. But that right is not protected by the Constitution as it is written now. I WISH IT WAS.
The Constitution makes no mention of how a firearm should or should not be used, what types can be owned, etc., because that would have been redundant. Heck, the whole Bill of Rights was itself considered redundant at first, but was added to appease the Antifederalists (thank god it was). The Second Amendment specifically prohibits the government from interfering with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", just like the First Amendment protects free speech, the right to assemble, and religion.

The First and Second Amendments do not guarantee civil liberties by providing governmental protection, they specifically deny the government from having authority over them ("Congress shall make no law...", "shall not be infringed."). The founders didn't see the need to add a clause protecting individual firearm ownership since it was already a given that it was not within the realm of governmental authority to do so. Nowadays though, with the expansion of government way beyond its intended roles, I agree with you that a firearm ownership clause is needed simply to preserve what should already be guaranteed.
__________________
Politicians are like diapers; they should be changed frequently, and for the same reason.

Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.
PolarMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 01:56 PM   #46 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Christian Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wisconsin

Playing devils advocate for a second here.

Technically, the states, and cities could enact laws governing firearms etc, since the limitation given in the constitution only limits the federal government from making laws or prohibiting gun ownership.

As a matter of fact, I think it was exactly that that was cited by Wyatt Erp (?) I think when he made people check thier guns in when they came into town. The question came up that he was violating a constitutional right, and his answer was that he was not a federal officer, but the sheriff of tombstone. May not have been Wyatt, and I haven't check my facts, I just think I remember something about that.

That said, I'd like to see what would happen if a state tried to limit speech using the same argument. You know, really limiting free speech, not what the lefties complain about, I mean a real violation.
Christian Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 03:21 PM   #47 (permalink)
Passing through rider
 
Azzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Finleyville, PA

Fan of EMR
Brass N Wood Fan
But if a state agrees to be part of the union, does it not have to abide by the same laws set in the Constitution? (no scholar on the issue here, just thinking out loud)

I have an on-going 22cal airgun carbing project here.. and after it's done, it wil hopefully put some rifles to shame
__________________
Riverside Renegade Paintball / C.C. S.V.S. Plankowner - LPPC#6
www.AzzysDesignWorks.com - best replacement jeep gauges in the biz
Old Timer Feedback
Azzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 03:53 PM   #48 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Christian Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wisconsin

Quote:
But if a state agrees to be part of the union, does it not have to abide by the same laws set in the Constitution? (no scholar on the issue here, just thinking out loud)
I think this is where the 10th ammendment could come into play:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The idea would be that the 2nd ammendment doesn't specifically say the states cannot infringe this right.

But, the 9th amendment says, just because you aren't specifically told you cannot ifringe these rights, doesn't mean you can, and that you cannot infringe on a right retained by the people.

#9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, somebody figured a lawyer would get ahold of this document, and figure out a way to defeat the spirit of what was said without breaking the letters, so they tried to even cover that eventuality. They didn't figure on just how devious lawyers can be, and how badly they can disect a word, so that it can mean exactly the opposite of what you intended.

Also, I thought the 14th had language in it, that said if the feds can't do it, neither can the states, in that the constitution also applied to the state law as well. I think this was around the slavery issue, so that the constitution could say slavery was not permitted without some state saying it was ok there, since they werent' the feds.
Christian Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » General » Paintball News

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC