Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?

Well punk, would you?

On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 08:56:16 -0800, chromebook test wrote:

> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>
> Well punk, would you?

I think gun control activists would support that! Their
reasoning could be that criticizing Israel is an act of
war and International Agreements prohibit private citizens
from engaging in warfare.

In article <3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
> agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?

What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
unconstitutional on its face.

On 2/8/2023 2:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>> agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>
> What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
> itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
> says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
> unconstitutional on its face.

Are you saying that gun permits are unconstitutional?

On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:03:45 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:

> In article<3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
> > agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>
> What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
> itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
> says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
> unconstitutional on its face.

So would you support such a law?

I see California and Florida passing unconstitutional laws,
so it wouldn't be a first.

On Feb 8, 2023 at 11:44:22 AM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:03:45 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> In article<3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
>> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>> > agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>>
>> What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
>> itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
>> says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
>> unconstitutional on its face.
>
> So would you support such a law?

I don't generally support laws that violate the Constitution.

On Feb 8, 2023 at 11:30:59 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/8/2023 2:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
>> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>>> agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>>
>> What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
>> itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
>> says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
>> unconstitutional on its face.
>
> Are you saying that gun permits are unconstitutional?

Yes, inasmuch as voting permits are unconstitutional. Or permits to worship
the god of your choice.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 2023 at 11:44:22 AM PST, Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:03:45 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>>>>agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?

>>>What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
>>>itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
>>>says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
>>>unconstitutional on its face.

>>So would you support such a law?

>I don't generally support laws that violate the Constitution.

I don't care. I think there should be a communications permit
specifically applicable to moviePig so he doesn't destroy English with
proprietary definitions.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 3:09:02 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 2023 at 11:44:22 AM PST, Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:03:45 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
> >>>>agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>
> >>>What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
> >>>itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
> >>>says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
> >>>unconstitutional on its face.
>
> >>So would you support such a law?

> >I don't generally support laws that violate the Constitution.

> I don't care. I think there should be a communications permit
> specifically applicable to moviePig so he doesn't destroy English with
> proprietary definitions.

Does moviePig have to pay by the 'word' or can he get the whole permit with a huge one-time contribution to AIPAC?

On 2/8/23 1:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>> agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>
> What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
> itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America

As part of a militia, correct.

On 2/8/23 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2023 at 11:30:59 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2023 2:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
>>> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>>>> agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>>>
>>> What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
>>> itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
>>> says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
>>> unconstitutional on its face.
>>
>> Are you saying that gun permits are unconstitutional?
>
> Yes, inasmuch as voting permits are unconstitutional. Or permits to worship
> the god of your choice.

Which one of those three can kill people? Voting? You're just
shitposting, as usual, and moviepig gave you an avenue to do so whether
he intended it or not.

On 2023-02-08 3:08 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2023 at 11:44:22 AM PST, Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:03:45 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>>>>> agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>
>>>> What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
>>>> itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
>>>> says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
>>>> unconstitutional on its face.
>
>>> So would you support such a law?
>
>> I don't generally support laws that violate the Constitution.
>
> I don't care. I think there should be a communications permit
> specifically applicable to moviePig so he doesn't destroy English with
> proprietary definitions.

I second that emotion!
--
Rhino

On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:03:45 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <3eaed911-eb2c-450b-bce9-84c3a7a8accbn@googlegroups.com>,
> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>> agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?
>
>What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
>itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
>says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
>unconstitutional on its face.

What MIGHT survive a constituional challenge is a law would be a
requirement for firearms training as a condition of ownership. After
all firearms training is the single most important function of a
militia right? What kind of militia DOESN'T involve training both in
use of weapons and mass tactics?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:03:45 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Would you support a law that prohibits your right to own a gun unless you
>>>agree to sign a pledge NOT to boycott Israel?

>>What would be the point of such a law, considering the 2nd Amendment
>>itself is what describes the right to own firearms in America and it
>>says nothing about Israel and boycotts. Any such law would be
>>unconstitutional on its face.

>What MIGHT survive a constituional challenge is a law would be a
>requirement for firearms training as a condition of ownership. After
>all firearms training is the single most important function of a
>militia right? What kind of militia DOESN'T involve training both in
>use of weapons and mass tactics?

It wouldn't. Post Heller, the Second Amendment is no longer an amendment
to the militia clauses but a free-standing right. "well-regulated
militia" preamble has no legal effect.

That and the National Guard IS NOT the militia. These are part-time
armed forces that are under command of the governor in case of disaster
or civil unrest, and the president when called into wartime service.

If we still had militia, the Second Amendment might be an entirely
different constitutional right.

To survive a constitutional challenge, then, a gun regulation would have
to survive strict scrutiny. Explaining strict scrutiny is, well, I know
lawyers have a discussion of this in constitutional law classes but I
think the opinions are hand waiving dressed up in flowery language.

I get slammed by lawyers in other newsgroups for expressing my iggurant
opinions on the law. BTR1701 is oddly tolerant.