Unconstitutional? So what, we're doing it anyways.

Well Lt. Moron, it is spelled out in the US Constitution. I'm sorry you aren't familiar with the document. Just another thing to add to the list that Lt. Moron knows nothing about.

Apparently all those days and years you were a gang banger has cost you the few brain cells you were born with and the valuable knowledge of the foundation for all laws in this country.

Seems the first law didn't work and came down to that. But now I feel like I should not have mentioned dogs.

Well, the state would then feel like it could regulate other things banned by the state constitution, so I would probably have to start a rebellion.

Really? I'm truly curious. It mentions specifically Registering, acquiring, and using guns.

If so, I will step off from this thread.

We hate change. Back in the 30's, we gave an inch, trying to be reasonable and compromise. Congress took a mile. Same story in the '60's and '90's.

No more. This far, no further.

You should read the constitution idiot. Are you capable of reading and comprehension? Or have you fried your brain too much with drugs and CFC's from spray paint cans?

Is KIRK right concerning Registering, acquiring, and using guns being spelled out in the Constitution?

I'm just looking for a little help on finding these details. Can you give me a hint as to what section it lays out specific rights concerning the registering, acquiring, and using of guns.

Did I say that registration and etc. was listed in the Constitution Lt. Moron? Or did I say that those things negatively impact law abiding citizens? Do try and keep things straight if you possess the facilities to do such a thing.

Here's a hint, read the 2nd amendment. It is a difficult read for some though. Many a Democrat have difficulty comprehending it. I have no doubt that you will also.

Which Constitution? The only two that concern me are pretty clear if you read them.

No, a registration of firearms is not defined in either of the constitutions I care about. Thank Jeebus.

Now this means something else?

Hey, its word game time.

Apparently you missed the section of the 2nd Amendment which clearly states the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do you need me to cut and paste a definition of the word infringed for you to Lt. Moron? Because it is obvious that as usual you are once again being pwned and school in things that are basic knowledge for most who have graduated the 8th grade.

Only for morons like you who do not know how to read and comprehend things. It's obvious that you know jack about the Constitution. Just another area of stupidity for Mewa. Hey did you ever figure out an airlines that offers direct flights for prices cheaper than those with layovers?

Don't play stupid. "that" refers to the guns themselves, not the registration, acquisition, and use thereof (though it should probably be "which")

I thought that was what you meant. Those gun lovers love that word. Without that word there would be no debate.

All we have is what posters post and what we read.

But you caught me.

Its funny how this keeps changing. Before long you will be claiming that I said direct flights have Santa as the pilot.

Did you catch where everyone here said that they DO keep track of their weapons and they WOULD report it as soon as they knew it was missing/stolen?

The thing is that these folks are GOING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION to make this law instead of working to change the constitution.

I think it's incredible that an elected official would say "Who cares if my law is unconstitutional."

But I don't understand how requiring people who lose their guns or have them stolen is unconstitutional, at least under the U.S. Constitution as it's interpreted.

Perhaps someone can explain without insults.

Pennsylvania's state constitution makes it illegal for towns to pass laws pertaining to guns, as they want all laws to be uniform.

Apparently Dummy the Dumb Shit has never read the Constitution.

Infringe!

Infriiiiingggeee!

Eeeeyunfreeeeeeyuuuunge!


Howzat?

Can you point to what section of the state constitution holds this?

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Heller that governments can pass some gun laws -- it certainly didn't invalidate all gun laws.

That was a little jokey-joke.

perhaps because it's stupid to tell folks that if the gun isn't in your possession any longer, you have to report it.
every intelligent gun owner i know would be on the phone calling the cops as soon as they see they are no longer in possession of the gun.

The law's stupid, ineffective and unnecessary, maybe.

That's different from it being unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional means that the government doesn't have the power to pass such a law.

I think they should make a law that Mewa has to file a report to the authorities within 24 hours of him saying something retarded. This would likely cut down his posting here by at least half, depending on the complexity of the report.

Maybe the law in question runs into un-constitutional grounds, federal & state, because the law starts a mandatory back-door registration (via police reports) of firearm owners?

Then what the fuck is the point of anyone registering at all?

Or, perhaps, they're attempting to prevent someone from backing out of a crime once the gun is discovered - you know "I didn't do it, that gun was stolen weeks ago."

And, if the woman really said "Who cares if it's unconstitional, ..." then she's a fucking idiot.

But, I'm not seeing how this law is unconstitional.