read please and tell me if I got it wrong

quickmajik

haveing to pay 15,000-20,000 dollars for a gun that costs 500 to manufacture because of regulation is unconstitutional in and of itself isnt it?

Not only does it infringe of the second amendment it also infringes the 14th amendment as well in that cost forms its own prohibition of ownership.

Poor people can not exercise the rights that the rich can on a right numerated in the founding documents..

Also none of the federal laws where a product of constitutional covention.. It doesnt matter what the courts have to say if it contridicts the tenth amendment right?

Also the ban on production of regulated firearms even when not subject to intrastate commerce would seem to be unconstitutional.. Is it? If not, why? I dont mean the law, I mean how did the law get the ability to make the call in the first place..

this is all for learning purposes, I want to understand this better..

COBmmcmss

quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
haveing to pay 15,000-20,000 dollars for a gun that costs 500 to manufacture because of regulation is unconstitutional in and of itself isnt it?

Not only does it infringe of the second amendment it also infringes the 14th amendment as well in that cost forms its own prohibition of ownership.

Poor people can not exercise the rights that the rich can on a right numerated in the founding documents..

Also none of the federal laws where a product of constitutional covention.. It doesnt matter what the courts have to say if it contridicts the tenth amendment right?

Also the ban on production of regulated firearms even when not subject to intrastate commerce would seem to be unconstitutional.. Is it? If not, why? I dont mean the law, I mean how did the law get the ability to make the call in the first place..

this is all for learning purposes, I want to understand this better..


Majik,

Although you could make a case for a class action of unconstitutionality, it would fail as there are still other guns out there that are NOT that expensive. Thus the cheaper gun still allows for the poor person to exercise their right to bear arms.

Now, if ALL weapons were priced at that range due to government regulation, you WOULD have a case.

BTW, there was a case out there if I recall correctly, wherein the ACLU tried to sue saying Saturday Night Specials were created just for "poor folk" and were cheaply made. The bigger cities jumped on the band wagon too. Just a recollection.

COB

Highball

quote:having to pay 15,000-20,000 dollars for a gun that costs 500 to manufacture because of regulation is unconstitutional in and of itself isnt it?

No..that is a capitalusts dream, there.

Personally, I believe it to be a mistake to attempt to follow the twisted trail of perversion that finds us in this mess.

One ought to hold a single thought clearly in mind;
The Second Amendment dealt with holding the Beast in chains.

Allowing that Beast to chain US is insane.

You can track some of the arguments that rage over on 'political' if you truly want to see the dodging, twisting, semantic-ridden, grey area hiding 'hooks' that tyrants DELIGHT ion...all designed to confuse common sense with cleaver dialogue.

pickenup

quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
haveing to pay 15,000-20,000 dollars for a gun that costs 500 to manufacture because of regulation is unconstitutional in and of itself isnt it?
Would I be correct in assuming that you are talking about full auto firearms?

Don McManus

quickmajik:

An interesting (and quick) read regarding discriminatory gun control:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_markdis.html

The National Firearms Control Act of 1934 was, IMO, intended to accomplish two things.

1. The registration of full-autos was intended to dissuade the Capone-era gang members.

2. The $ 200.00 tax stamp, obviously a significant burden in the days of $ 1.00 per hour hourly wages, was included to keep them out of the hands of the poor.

Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986 is aptly named, because its implementation protected the owners of these weapons from any possibility of devaluation, and ensured that only those with a significant amount of disposable income would buying them in the future.

This is where the continual distortion of the 2nd Amendment, particularly how it is being promoted as protecting merely hunting, sporting and self-defense weapons has achieved its desired outcome. No one needs a full auto for hunting, sporting, or self-defense issues, unless, of course, you are defending yourself against a group that has access to any number of these weapons.

Of course these bans are Unconstitutional and discriminatory. They are perfectly acceptable, however, under the New Constitution that is being created each and every day in the Capital Building in Washington D.C.

quickmajik

quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
haveing to pay 15,000-20,000 dollars for a gun that costs 500 to manufacture because of regulation is unconstitutional in and of itself isnt it?
Would I be correct in assuming that you are talking about full auto firearms?


Also cannons, but yes, machineguns too.. I dont see why I or anyone else should have to pay that much money to buy a used product made over twenty years ago. Its discrimination. Its one thing to tax, its another to ban, that is clearly an infringement.

Don, also a limited and shrinking number are in circulation..

They would be no more dangerious in my hands then any other firearm I own..

Also, Everyone born today will never have the same chance as you older fellows to buy what you wanted at a moderate price.

wpage

Wish you did have it wrong. Yes machine gun kelly is long gone. However the laws linger on. Now supplements have been added. As long as lawyers are running our great country this is what we will keep getting. More of their ranting and raving laws on the books.