Gun instead of TV: Washingtonian receives not quite what he ordered on the Internet

[radgamer420]

Talk about getting bang for your buck (Sorry, I'll keep the puns in the other thread lol)

The girl in the box would also give you alot of bang for your buck. lol

[Vulgotha]

Would have kept the gun.

[admartian]

So they found this while rifling through their mail?

[Vulgotha]

I see what u did thar

[Blacksite]

So they found this while rifling through their mail?

Lol. This guy...

[claud3]

Well he dodged a bullet, explaining this to the wife

[DreDayDetox]

I guess he really was mislead.

[Morganator]

I'd have kept it and not have cared about the laws. The constitution gives me far more authority than the laws do and since these laws construe to deny and/or disparage me from the unalienable right to bear arms, more than just the second amendment is being broken here. An overreach of the federal government to be sure, since this ban only serves to allow these politicians to do as they please without fear of or for the consequences of their traitorous actions.

So what happens now? Will he get his flat panel TV? If not, will his money be returned? If not, than the contract laws of eminent domain have also been violated. How do the police reconcile their actions which, while following the laws specific to Washington D.C., directly violate civil and constitutional law?

[F34R]

I'd have kept it and not have cared about the laws. The constitution gives me far more authority than the laws do and since these laws construe to deny and/or disparage me from the unalienable right to bear arms, more than just the second amendment is being broken here. An overreach of the federal government to be sure, since this ban only serves to allow these politicians to do as they please without fear of or for the consequences of their traitorous actions.

So what happens now? Will he get his flat panel TV? If not, will his money be returned? If not, than the contract laws of eminent domain have also been violated. How do the police reconcile their actions which, while following the laws specific to Washington D.C., directly violate civil and constitutional law?

None of the OP has anything to do with the right to bear arms, or his rights being violated by the gun being taken.

[Morganator]

None of the OP has anything to do with the right to bear arms, or his rights being violated by the gun being taken.

Does the article in the link to which the OP provided in a thread about guns talk about guns and the law surrounding them in the Washington D.C. area? Does it talk about the confiscation of said gun according to said laws in the Washington D.C. area? Do the laws in the Washington D.C. area include but are not limited to civil and constitutional law? Can we actually talk about what went on here in the context in which the article and the thread is really about or do we all have to contribute to this thread only in puns?

[claud3]

Not that i know of mate. But leading to a barrel of laughs anyway

[F34R]

Does the article in the link to which the OP provided in a thread about guns talk about guns and the law surrounding them in the Washington D.C. area? Does it talk about the confiscation of said gun according to said laws in the Washington D.C. area? Do the laws in the Washington D.C. area include but are not limited to civil and constitutional law? Can we actually talk about what went on here in the context in which the article and the thread is really about or do we all have to contribute to this thread only in puns?

The law in which they confiscated because of isn't a violation of any of his rights, or the company that shipped it. I guess if you are under the impressions that laws are just against the rights of people.... that's how it seems you're making it out to be.

[claud3]

Be it the right of the people or not. Guns in the wrongs hands is a dangerous combination

[Morganator]

The law in which they confiscated because of isn't a violation of any of his rights, or the company that shipped it. I guess if you are under the impressions that laws are just against the rights of people.... that's how it seems you're making it out to be.

Does the law serve to "construe to deny or disparage" his rights retained as a citizen of the United States? I think so. The assault weapons ban in Washington D.C. is unconstitutional.

[RaY_210]

Does the law serve to "construe to deny or disparage" his rights retained as a citizen of the United States? I think so. The assault weapons ban in Washington D.C. is unconstitutional.

But it's not banning all weapons. So one still has a right own one, just not an assault weapon.

[claud3]

Its a gun instead of a flat screen, how unannounced can that be

A shot to the system for sure

[Vulgotha]

But it's not banning all weapons. So one still has a right own one, just not an assault weapon.

I would love to know wtf an 'assault weapon' is defined as. That makes no sense whatsoever as a term.

[claud3]

Its defined as an object and not a weapon, that is why i believe it was shipped to him. The company that was meant to give him a t.v, instead give him a gun as an object. There mistake and stupidity

[Vulgotha]

No no, I mean people here and in that report are saying that "assault weapons are banned in D.C.".. But for the life of me I have never found what technically constitutes an 'assault weapon' in spite of the term being employed fairly regularly. The classification just does not make any sense.

[claud3]

Ok,mate dead on. But how do you ban some weapons and yet keep the 2snd amendment ?

[MATRIX 2]

Ok,mate dead on. But how do you ban some weapons and yet keep the 2snd amendment ?

You don't.

[Vulgotha]

Pretty much what he said.

[claud3]

And yet they do. How do you define the 2snd amendment. But you try and the true meaning is not defined

In my opinion

[Shibby]

Guys, guys, come on. You're getting all serious. The Colorado thread already got into all of this.

Back to the puns, please. Lol.

[F34R]

Does the law serve to "construe to deny or disparage" his rights retained as a citizen of the United States? I think so. The assault weapons ban in Washington D.C. is unconstitutional.

I guess just get rid of every law. People should apparently have the right to have any gun, any time.

Ok,mate dead on. But how do you ban some weapons and yet keep the 2snd amendment ?

The second amendment doesn't dictate which guns are people allowed to have.