If the constitutionis the law of the land...

If the constitutionis the law of the land, why can't you take the ATF to court for trying to enforce laws or regulations that violate the second amendment? Why has no one who's gotten into trouble with the ATF over firearm regulations brought them to court and removed their authority?

Attached: __original_drawn_by_nancou_nankou__sample-81d700f65e672f123691fd6cb2906cfa.jpg (850x683, 216K)

Because the second amendment isn't unlimited in scope, same as the first. The government can still pass firearm laws and restrictions, the problem is when they cross the threshold that steps on someone's rights

The legal system allows for an encourages contradictory law. Also shenanigans with what is considered law.

The ATF is a law enforcement agency, not a lawmaking agency. If you want to challenge a law, you don't sue the cops who enforce it, you sue the government that passed it.

Because the Supreme Court was packed with cucks thanks to globalist politicians.

The first amendment is limited in the context of what you say, not the words themselves. You can say whatever you want, but you can't do shit like the classic
>no yelling fire in a movie theater
It's just like how murder and assault ought to be illegal, but you can own whatever weapons you want. You can say the word "fire" all you want, but you can't yell it in a crowded building.

>shall not be infringed
they were all meant to be unlimited.

You can yell it in a crowded building under plenty of circumstances
You just can't with the intention of causing distress or a riot or something

They have crossed that threshold.

Attached: imagesds.jpg (259x194, 11K)

If the government is blatantly violating the second amendment, why hasn't anyone successfully fought them on it?

Did you just start a civics class or did the autism just kick in naturally?

Attached: 1553839731228.jpg (640x733, 82K)

Naturally.

Every gun law has been fought, some successfully, some not successfully.
Judges are appointed by politicians, politicians have agendas.
Besides who knows what the founding fathers meant with vague and archaic phrases such as...
>Shall not be infringed

SHALL

He speaks truth. The way the judges see it we have no right to anything but a single shot 22lr

The government doesn’t follow laws

Because the court is bound by bullshit precedents set by commie sympathizers in the early 20th century.

Also, they have a habit of tryOKng not to directly overturn laws passed by the congress. Often sighting even the flimsiest of "constitutional" reasoning. For example the commerce clause is the anvil the feds use to hammer any states or state laws that refuse to comply with daddy feds.

The second most especially. The constitution grants the power to congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Or, in plain English, to hire privateers to wage war on America's behalf.

You can't logically tell me it's alright for Americans to own their own personal, private warships, but not semi-auto, or even full auto weapons. The two don't logically follow.

>leftists
>logic
user, I...

But it's not just leftists user. Plenty of perfectly ordinary American conservatives - that aren't "all you need is thirty ot (yes, I know it's ought) six and a hhhhweeelgun" fudds - also buy into this dumb shit.

Imhao, it's a lack of familiarity with both the constitution, and supporting documents written during the process. The god damn thing's written in plain English and motherfuckers don't read it.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms suitable for hunting" is not present anywhere. No matter how much I look.

Every single gun.law is unconstitutional. Every. Single. One.

Something something reading is for fags

Actually... it kinda does.

US rights are geared toward wealthy landowners. Warships etc. are cost prohibitive for common criminals an unnecessary for a dude with a farm, but necessary to protect a privately owned port, etc.

In fact, I would say that one of the reasons this country us so fucked up is because the upper classes enjoy a disproportionate benefit from a large publicly funded military that was never supposed to exist in the first place outside of wartime, because the working class ends up supplementing merchant organizational security

If fashion designers and hardware manufacturers had to fund their own goddamned Air Force (Army/Airforce are NOT constitutional btw), they wouldnt be so cavalier about outsourcing production beyond the CONUS.

>i do not live in a timeline where i can walk into a store operated by a weird ass catgirl and buy a fucking m32 off the shelf and grenades to go with it, no questions asked
so much hate

>not buying the catgirl as well

In a way, that tidbit has become outdated, since modern military equipment requires so much fucking infrastructure to keep running, let alone manufacture
God help you if you want to keep a fighter jet or a missile cruiser running for longer than 15 minutes as a private individual or even as a business owner

Protecting your private port is secondary to ensuring liberty by murdering tyrants. A cannon could be purchased for fair market value, but instead you have to pay big daddy government this and that. It is nothing but an excuse to milk us even more. These things were already prohibitively expensive before traitorous rats sold our own rights back to us. The people who allowed these laws to pass should unironically be killed in the street as a warning to the next one who would betray his countrymen for money.

Attached: received_693935857671213.jpg (519x519, 26K)

>consolidation of federal power
>agencies outside of the scope of the 3 branches of government (thanks FDR)

Check out my cool little fun stick tho

Attached: rusted08.jpg (1536x1152, 374K)

>repeating that shit over and over
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is, in fact, protected speech. Stop repeating lies.

People have to take the case to through the courts, which means that you have to convince a series of men and, unfortunately, women, to put aside their bias and activate their reading comprehension, and most of all to be temporarily honest with themselves. Most people refuse to do this, even on the supreme court.

Reminder that the government has stated plainly that the letter of the law is secondary to the government's interests.

Definitely open to interpretation alright. Kek.

>Army/Airforce are NOT constitutional btw

The constitution says that nowhere. You could make a weak case that it was unconstitutional to split the air force from the army. A weak case.

You cannot make a case for the army being unconstitutional. The constitution explicitly provides to the congress the power to raise and keep - raise and KEEP - an army and a navy. The only constitutional stipulation is that no appropriation for the same can be for a period longer than two years.

I'm not even going to dignify the classist bullshit in the rest of your post with a response. Take that shit on the arches.

Attached: LoL3.jpg (294x294, 61K)

This guy fucking gets it

You could however, build your own warship and arm it with black powder cannons plus small arms for the crew.

And all you'd manage is a historical LARP and nothing else, because cannons are no longer effective as weapons

>I-i-i just don't even!
Kek, admitting defeat

>not autocannons
Both are cannons.

Chuck Norris walking away from a retarded quadriplegic in an iron lung challenging him to a fight isn't admitting defeat.

It's acknowledgement that the adversary is not a worthy one.

>Protecting your private port is secondary to ensuring liberty by murdering tyrants
k is such a funny gathering place for autists

You're not Chuck Norris. You're standing atop mount stupid.

Current annual DOJ budgetary reviews have become a rubber stamp, and thus an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority. Further, the degree to which Congress allows the DOJ to not account for its expenditures means that it is not exercising oversight authority. The two year renewal period lines up with House elections for a reason: the standing Army was specifically meant to be tightly constrained by the will of the people because standing armies are the instruments if tyranny. Thats why you don't see the same hangups about the Navy among Anti-Feds. Appropriations were intended to be a check. They haven't been since the Executive branch unilaterally decided that appropriations did not restrict Congress from approving projects which would take the Army more than 2 years to complete with any sort of special process. That's very credibly unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS has never reviewed this issue so nobody actually knows the answer. The fact that your confidence belies your ignorance. Eat shit fagtron, you don't know what you're talking about, go back to your undergrad prof and tell at him for not teaching you how the constitution functions.

Butt

Blasted

Pwned

Hardly. You can't even decide on an argument. The army's unconstitutional. No, no, the air force is unconstitutional. No, no, the constitutional provision for 2 year appropriations is unconstitutional!

Take a breather. Put your shit in order. And don't talk about who's anti-fed to me. I've been anti-fed since the Weaver family and I watched the jackboots burn families alive on national tv.

The NFA was made possible by the Great Depression, when people were struggling too much to mobilize (like they had on prior occasions). Banks generally control America and its people.

Today, they say that taxation of a right isn’t infringement. They say they didn’t make it “illegal” just very difficult to get.

More relevantly to our time, the amendment that really gives the ATF (and the fed in general) authority is the 16th. Which, if you ever look into the history of it, it “passed” under very suspicious circumstances. It’s quite possibly an invalid amendment, having not been truly ratified.

In a more perfect union, the 2a would either be amended to explicitly state that taxation is a barrier to entry, therefore infringement. OR, which might be more necessary, another constitution or amendment introduced to target, gut, and diminish the fed (which is domestic enemy no. 1 these days) since the original constitution is struggling to do that—although that was its salient purpose: to control the government, not the people. People are supposed to control the gov, not the other way around.

Tl;dr Might as well fly the Stars and Stripes upside down.

Attached: 21F109DE-DC71-4FD6-9321-A01DF0B9A5F2.jpg (3264x2448, 3.06M)

If you can't see how those three things interconnect, you're a step behind. That part isn't argument, it's fact. The argument is that Congress is acting unconstitutionally. The factual support is that the Air Force, rubber-stamp appropriations, and long term projects are not constitutionally mandated.

You still haven't made an argument to support your position, you just repeated your conclusions then jumped to ad hominem. I called you out on it. Just chill and learn so you can measure up next time.

The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time. If you're in the US, you don't belong here.

The Constitution says whatever SCOTUS says it does. They can say an all-out weapons ban is constitutional and that would be it, it's law. They don't even need to give a reason.

>Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is, in fact, protected speech. Stop repeating lies.

Right? I knew there were a lot of retards around, but that retarded? To hear the unironic neolib "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater" shit, here?
fuck

Why is there a fucking apostrophe between gun and s. That indicates possession. Are these guns that belong to a gun that belong to someone named gun?

Also
>$75 AK
>qt catgirl
God I wish that store were real, garbage grammar aside.

Deflation's a hell of a drug.

Based shallposter

Does deflation explain the terrible punctuation and nekomimi QT?

Second this. Al Capone didn't follow laws either.

>words change meaning because the federal government says so
Read about nullification and consider that the federal government isn’t the final arbiter on what power the federal government has

>GUN'S GUN'S GUN'S
Are you sure you want to buy from a store where they can't even figure out pluralization?

NOT

Attached: 1526752742805.jpg (720x720, 93K)

Welcome to the club

We have to audit the Fed first.

Attached: hqdefault(1).jpg (358x242, 26K)