DOJ orders apple and google to hand over identifying data of every user of gun scope app

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Doesn't work

Yes it does, and like every law it can be changed or amended. You have the ability to ask for it and you also have the ability to vote for a politician that supports that request.

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

Yes it does

No, it really doesn't. I gave you 3 examples of governments doing something that is illegal for them to do.

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it really doesn't. I gave you 3 examples of governments doing something that is illegal for them to do.

No you have one good example of something you think is illegal, and the other similar but far as I know expired in 2004. Both were legally challenged and the first and was initially found to be a breach of the Second Amendment but that was later overturned. The Supreme Court also refused to hear the case so as it stands it's legal. Unless you can show me it is not?

Edited September 7, 2019 by leadeater

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

expired in 2004.

Irrelevant, it infinged upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Both were legally challenged the first and was initially found to be a breach of the Second Amendment but that was later overturned.

And?

 

The Second Amendment of the US constitution is as follows:

Spoiler

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.

Militia, in the context of the late 1700s, meaning an army of the people, by the people, for the people, and loyal to the people, aka every person fit to fight.

 

 

 

So, an arm of the government saying that the government can do something that is forbidden in the constitution drafted to govern the government does not make it any less forbidden.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Irrelevant, it infinged upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

And?

 

The Second Amendment of the US constitution is as follows:

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

Militia, in the context of the late 1700s, meaning an army of the people, by the people, for the people, and loyal to the people, aka every person fit to fight.

 

 

 

So, an arm of the government saying that the government can do something that is forbidden in the constitution drafted to govern the government does not make it any less forbidden.

This fails to prove it's illegal over a court that has said otherwise, I hear your opinion on the matter but that doesn't make it so. Edit: And there is no point lobbying for change to me, that would be best directed to political figures and organisations in your country.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This fails to prove it's illegal

Quote

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.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infringe?s=t\

Quote

verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or uponDon't infringe on his privacy.

 

The Hughes Amendment violates the right of people to keep and bare arms. It established the ATF and bans the ownership of machine guns, by definition of the ATF. That definition includes, but is not limited to:

1. Automatic weapons
2. Open bolt semiautomatics produced after 1986
3. Bump stocks

And the ATF would also ban:

1. Short barreled rifles (stock and spiral rifled barrel length under 16")
2. Short barreled shotguns (stock and barrel length under 18")
3. Vertical foregrips on pistols
4. Smooth bore pistols
5. Scatterguns under 26" overall length
6. "Destructive devices" (guns deemed by the ATF to have no sporting purpose, such as the Streetsweeper shotgun and the USAS-12, the former being a revolver shotgun of questionable reliability and the latter being a semiautomatic, magazine fed sporting shotgun)

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infringe?s=t\

 

The Hughes Amendment violates the right of people to keep and bare arms. It established the ATF and bans the ownership of machine guns, by definition of the ATF. That definition includes, but is not limited to:

1. Automatic weapons
2. Open bolt semiautomatics produced after 1986
3. Bump stocks

And the ATF would also ban:

1. Short barreled rifles (stock and spiral rifled barrel length under 16")
2. Short barreled shotguns (stock and barrel length under 18")
3. Vertical foregrips on pistols
4. Smooth bore pistols
5. Scatterguns under 26" overall length
6. "Destructive devices" (guns deemed by the ATF to have no sporting purpose, such as the Streetsweeper shotgun and the USAS-12, the former being a revolver shotgun of questionable reliability and the latter being a semiautomatic, magazine fed sporting shotgun)

um can you imagine if mass shooters have machine guns

[Drak3]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

um can you imagine if mass shooters have machine guns

Yes. A M16 wouldn't be any more dangerous than an AR15, or your typical Glock 17.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Yes. A M16 wouldn't be any more dangerous than an AR15, or your typical Glock 17.

m16 sure but what about one of these

[Drak3]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

m16 sure but what about one of these

At $3 a shot, 83.78lb, and costing thousands for the gun itself, there's a reason it wasn't used in mass shootings when it was legal for general ownership. And even when automatics were completely legal, which was also a time with higher violent rates of crime, mass shootings and the use of automatic weapons were largely an occurance revolving around gang crime.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

At $3 a shot, 83.78lb, and costing thousands for the gun itself, there's a reason it wasn't used in mass shootings when it was legal for general ownership. And even when automatics were completely legal, which was also a time with higher violent rates of crime, mass shootings and the use of automatic weapons were largely an occurance revolving around gang crime.

if someone is going to do a mass shooting i dont think they are concerned about spending wisely and saving up their money

[Drak3]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

if someone is going to do a mass shooting i dont think they are concerned about spending wisely and saving up their money

Not the point. It's too expensive to use. You're not going to be able to just pick one up and go killing a week later.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Not the point. It's too expensive to use. You're not going to be able to just pick one up and go killing a week later.

you think if it becomes legal to own one of those there will never be a shooting that uses it?

[Drak3]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

you think if it becomes legal to own one of those there will never be a shooting that uses it?

Highly unlikely.

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

um can you imagine if mass shooters have machine guns

I wouldn't worry about it, unless someone is a constitutional law expert we can all opinion shout till the cows come home, get butchered then eaten nothing will be achieved by doing so.

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

opinion

It's not opinion.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

It's not opinion.

there are limits to the constitution imo like how you cant yell fire in a airport and then say thats protected speech

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

It's not opinion.

Well excuse me for believing a court over what you say, which is your opinion. Like I said repeat it as much as you like it's not going to change anything. You don't need to change my mind as I have zero influence over the matter.

[Drak3]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

there are limits to the constitution imo like how you cant yell fire in a airport and then say thats protected speech

That's a call to action. You're not facing punishment for your speech, you're facing punishment for inciting other people to panic.

 

Just now, leadeater said:

which is your opinion.

This:

27 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infringe?s=t\

 

The Hughes Amendment violates the right of people to keep and bare arms. It established the ATF and bans the ownership of machine guns, by definition of the ATF. That definition includes, but is not limited to:

1. Automatic weapons
2. Open bolt semiautomatics produced after 1986
3. Bump stocks

And the ATF would also ban:

1. Short barreled rifles (stock and spiral rifled barrel length under 16")
2. Short barreled shotguns (stock and barrel length under 18")
3. Vertical foregrips on pistols
4. Smooth bore pistols
5. Scatterguns under 26" overall length
6. "Destructive devices" (guns deemed by the ATF to have no sporting purpose, such as the Streetsweeper shotgun and the USAS-12, the former being a revolver shotgun of questionable reliability and the latter being a semiautomatic, magazine fed sporting shotgun)

Is not opinion.

[leadeater]

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Is not opinion.

 

Quote

Was this act a violation of the Second Amendment? A Georgia man named Farmer purchased a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after the passing of the FOPA. When applying for registration of this fully-automatic firearm, the BATF rejected him. The interpretation of the amendment that the BATF was acting upon was, in his mind, incorrect. He questioned whether or not Congress had the power to ban a specific type of weapon, and if they exercised that power, would that be a violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution? The District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer’s favor. The federal government appealed, and later reversed the decision.

 

Are you a constitutional law expert? So that'll end my part of this here, I don't see how this is going to result in anything different neither actually is it particularly important to me either. Not that I'm not interested in the goings on around this, that's why I was aware of the ATF restrictions on data collection and how they handle it but I take more interest in that sort of thing because that's in my realm of work. Similarly how and who got those restrictions in place doesn't interest me much either, the implications of them do. I was actually very surprised when I found out, to live in a world where we can type a single part of a line of a movie and find out in seconds what that movie was but have a gun serial number and potentially never find the relevant information that exists for it is to me shocking. But then neither was I shocked over what Facebook and Google does either.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Are you a constitutional law expert?

Irrelevant. I laid out the second amendment for you. It's very straight forward.

 

So when the second amendment says that the peoples' right to bear arms shall not be infringed, with no 'buts' or 'except in this scenario,' it's also easy to understand how a piece of legislation that exists for the sole purpose is to encroach upon the second amendment is an infringement of said amendment and thus illegal as the second amendment has not been changed.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Irrelevant. I laid out the second amendment for you. It's very straight forward.

 

So when the second amendment says that the peoples' right to bear arms shall not be infringed, with no 'buts' or 'except in this scenario,' it's also easy to understand how a piece of legislation that exists for the sole purpose is to encroach upon the second amendment is an infringement of said amendment and thus illegal as the second amendment has not been changed.

No it isn't otherwise a court would have backed what you say, the Supreme Court would have heard the case and ruled so. So as to whether you are a constitutional law expert is very important to me, because if you are not your opinion won't influence me in any way so you can stop trying. Without that accreditation how you interpret what the constitution says has no weight to you saying if something is illegal or not.

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No it isn't otherwise a court would have backed what you say

Your own quote says one did. The Federal Government appealed and reversed it.

[dalekphalm]

43 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Irrelevant. I laid out the second amendment for you. It's very straight forward.

 

So when the second amendment says that the peoples' right to bear arms shall not be infringed, with no 'buts' or 'except in this scenario,' it's also easy to understand how a piece of legislation that exists for the sole purpose is to encroach upon the second amendment is an infringement of said amendment and thus illegal as the second amendment has not been changed.

There are multiple interpretations to the 2nd amendment, even if you disagree with them. Such as the interpretation that your right to bear arms is reliant on being part of a “well regulated militia”. 

 

Most people of the NRA persuasion don’t see it that way, but I digress. 

[Drak3]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Such as the interpretation that your right to bear arms is reliant on being part of a “well regulated militia”.

The Federalist papers prove that malicious lie wrong.