new ATF ruling on PB silencers

[Target Practice]

They aren't going to hunt you down. They won't give a good goddamn. They will not seek you out and charge you with a crime.

[Lurker27]

They aren't going to hunt you down. They won't give a good goddamn. They will not seek you out and charge you with a crime.

Ding Ding. I wouldnt make a bunch and sell them online, but having a small sleeve around your porting...I doubt that's objectionable. Might even help in tourney play...

[OneEyedPimp]

We do care because some people REALLY want their silencer on thier paintball gun and look for loopholes that just aren't there.

Actually, two huge loopholes come to mind, The ninth and second amendments. I mean, both of those laws nullify every law made for and under the juristiction of the Bureau of All Things Fun and Exciting, the DEA, and any other law that has been made since 1912.

This should not be construded to be open for argument, everything I said above can be verified online and though common sense. Besides, I do not belive political discussion is allowed in this forum.

[SlartyBartFast]

Actually, two huge loopholes come to mind, The ninth and second amendments. I mean, both of those laws nullify every law made for and under the juristiction of the Bureau of All Things Fun and Exciting, the DEA, and any other law that has been made since 1912.

This should not be construded to be open for argument, everything I said above can be verified online and though common sense. Besides, I do not belive political discussion is allowed in this forum.

Wow, drive-by flippant opinion. The gun control act of 193~ has never been struck down.

Pretty much anything can be "verified" online, and common sense is a rare commodity that usually exists in inverse proportion to the quantity claimed.

And what does the Ninth have to do with anything?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All that means is the constitution doesn't define ALL the rights to which a citizen is entitled. However, it does not in any way limit how unnamed "rights" might be affected by other laws.

You've got a long and difficult road to proove that first something is a right that deserves protection, then secondly that a law shouldn't affect that right.

[OneEyedPimp]

Wow, drive-by flippant opinion. The gun control act of 193~ has never been struck down.

Pretty much anything can be "verified" online, and common sense is a rare commodity that usually exists in inverse proportion to the quantity claimed.

And what does the Ninth have to do with anything?


All that means is the constitution doesn't define ALL the rights to which a citizen is entitled. However, it does not in any way limit how unnamed "rights" might be affected by other laws.

You've got a long and difficult road to proove that first something is a right that deserves protection, then secondly that a law shouldn't affect that right.

Actually, I'm tired. I am tired of arguing a mute point for the freedoms that I am entitled to, the ones that are PROTECTED under the first 10 amendments. I do not want to argue with anyone else about this. In the end, you will think I am a crazy libertarian and I will have a same level of respect for you as I have for anyone who believes that they know whats best for me. However, if you are truely interested in how any law made after 1912 is actually null and void, and any anyone enforcing such laws should be up for treason, I suggest you read "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." Both are a compilation of essays on the freedom movement. Anything else you would like to say, feel free to pm me.

P.S. I referenced the ninth amendment because court systems have a growing trend in saying that the second amendment does not protect the individuals right to self-defense. If this is the case, the ninth amendment protects it quite well.

[SlartyBartFast]

Actually, I'm tired. I am tired of arguing a mute point for the freedoms that I am entitled to, the ones that are PROTECTED under the first 10 amendments.

Problem you're rights are null and void the instant they affect the rights of someone else. THat's what living in a society instead of a cave on top of a mountain is all about Bucko.

And it's a moot point.

And the fact that wako libertarians don't run the world is absolute proof the point is certainly not "moot"

However, if you are truely interested in how any law made after 1912 is actually null and void, .

Well, I suppose at least you're not one of the brain dead idiots that tries the same dumb arguments but backs up to the Magna-Carta. You're still pretty stupid though.

P.S. I referenced the ninth amendment because court systems have a growing trend in saying that the second amendment does not protect the individuals right to self-defense. If this is the case, the ninth amendment protects it quite well.

Don't get it do you. Determining YOUR right to "self-defense" is tempered by the alleged assailants rights to life and a fair trial.

The ninth protects absolutely NOTHING at all. It doesn't define other rights, how "rights" should be determined or defined, or how those "rights" are then to be treated by the law.

You claim a right, someone denies it's a right. If they (democracy) wins, the ninth does nothing to help you.

[OneEyedPimp]

Problem you're rights are null and void the instant they affect the rights of someone else. THat's what living in a society instead of a cave on top of a mountain is all about Bucko.

The only rights that I advocate are those that I am entitled to. No right that is enumerated in the constitution infringes on the rights of others. Go ahead, name one, I dare you.

And it's a moot point.

And the fact that wako libertarians don't run the world is absolute proof the point is certainly not "moot"



Well, I suppose at least you're not one of the brain dead idiots that tries the same dumb arguments but backs up to the Magna-Carta. You're still pretty stupid though.

Sir, I am not going to resort to bewidling you for the sake of my argument.

Don't get it do you. Determining YOUR right to "self-defense" is tempered by the alleged assailants rights to life and a fair trial.

No, I get it. I never advocated people to shoot other people. If someone is breaking into someone elses house, the owner of the house is having his life and property infringed upon, therefore he has every right to protect said rights, through whatever means necessary.

The ninth protects absolutely NOTHING at all. It doesn't define other rights, how "rights" should be determined or defined, or how those "rights" are then to be treated by the law.

The ninth amendment protects, well everything it says it does. This includes substance use, freedom of travel, and it also reinforces every other of the first 10 amendments.

You claim a right, someone denies it's a right. If they (democracy) wins, the ninth does nothing to help you.

[SuiciDal Sn Y p ER]

thank you guys for a brief lesson on us history and our lovely constitution