# Gun Rights



## DGS49 (Nov 3, 2018)

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government.  It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government.  It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause.  Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause.  Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons.  Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper,"  or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a  very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???"  "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum.  We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone.  That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution.  Those countries were founded on different principles.  It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here.  So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it.  Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.


----------



## miketx (Nov 3, 2018)

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.


----------



## OldLady (Nov 3, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> 
> Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government.  It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government.  It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.
> 
> ...


Easy to at least get started here.
Outlaw assault weapons.  It would not interfere with what you believe is a God given right for every citizen to own killing machines.  They could all still bear arms.

Make ERPO laws national.

Tighten up background checks and start stringently punishing those who transfer weapons illegally.

There.  You still have your fucking guns and crazy maniacs who want to shoot up a church have a slightly slower gun to do it with.

Ooops.  This is the Constitution forum.  Sorry.  
I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## miketx (Nov 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> ...


No such thing as assault weapons traitor.  You want them, come get them. Be first through the door.


----------



## BlackFlag (Nov 3, 2018)

"Well regulated"

Thoughts & Prayers: The Game


----------



## miketx (Nov 3, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> "Well regulated"


"Good working order"


----------



## BlackFlag (Nov 3, 2018)

miketx said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > "Well regulated"
> ...


Last of the synagogue funerals draws hundreds including governor

Working great, huh?


----------



## miketx (Nov 3, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


You bet. Them Jews should have armed themselves because you never no when a crazy liberal will try to kill you.


----------



## BlackFlag (Nov 3, 2018)

miketx said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


The white supremacist behind the massacre was so conservative that he thought Trump was too liberal.  You made it easy for him to commit the massacre, and you will vote to keep it easy for more massacres to happen.  I'm surprised you haven't started demonizing the survivors yet.


----------



## OldLady (Nov 3, 2018)

miketx said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


That's your choice, mike.  You want to die over owning an AR, I guess it's up to you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> ...




Why do you support punishing those of us that haven't misused any type of gun because of what a few did?   I thought you lefties didn't believe that the whole should be judged by what only a few within a group did.  I guess that applies only when Muslims commit acts of terror or a Democrat commits a crime.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 9, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


Irrelevant


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> That's your choice, mike. You want to die over owning an AR, I guess it's up to you.


I will choose to die.

But, I will be getting in a few shots before I go.


----------



## miketx (Nov 9, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


That has nothing to do with the meaning of the 2nd, ya lying troll.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> ...


You have to have a Class III permit to own an "assault" weapon. Which means an extensive and expensive process. Those types of firearms are not cheap and you have to find a dealer that is specifically licensed to sell them. The semi-automatic weapons that I can buy at any gun store such as an AR-15 *ARE NOT FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.  *


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> ...


Semiautomatic rifles are not assault weapons.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 12, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


--------------------------------------   EMOTION Driven people for the most part and with an agenda  BlackFag .


----------



## pismoe (Dec 12, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


-------------------------------------------------   guns work FINE for the vast majority of Americans same as cars do  but when using either there may be casualties  and Deaths BlackFlag .


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 12, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> 
> Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government.  It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government.  It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.
> 
> ...


Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority.  That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land.  Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms.  Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose.  With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil.  The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

lets see a link to that info that you claim in your post number 19 just above this question eh Pelinore .  Lets see the LINK to where any RIGHT can be eliminated , changed or removed by 'government' if there is a Large enough 'MAJORITY'   Pelinore


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2018)

pismoe said:


> lets see a link to that info that you claim in your post number 19 just above this question eh Pelinore .  Lets see the LINK to where any RIGHT can be eliminated , changed or removed by 'government' if there is a Large enough 'MAJORITY'   Pelinore


Any amendment to the Constitution can be changed by the procedure spelled out


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > lets see a link to that info that you claim in your post number 19 just above this question eh Pelinore .  Lets see the LINK to where any RIGHT can be eliminated , changed or removed by 'government' if there is a Large enough 'MAJORITY'   Pelinore
> ...


--------------------------------   yeah , AMENDMENT i suppose but its not just a simple waving of a wand and then removal of a RIGHT as seems to be implied .  Also i do not believe that any of the Original '10 ' Bill of RIGHTS can be removed by Amendment  SPilot .


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2018)

pismoe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



Of course they can.

Amendments can be added or repealed if the proper procedure spelled out in the Constitution is followed

Constitutional Amendment Process


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure .    I do not believe that that is true SPilot .    ------------   ---   First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw  ---


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

and then leaving the '10' Bill of Rights , can Slavery be reinstated because a majority says that Slavery can be reinstated  .   ---https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment   ---


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 13, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> 
> Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government.  It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government.  It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.
> 
> ...


Wrong. 

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts. 

The people have the right to challenge such measures in court, and when upheld, those measures are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> ...


----------------------------------    seems to me that all you are saying is that 'government' and 'courts' have  STACKED the deck with prior decisions on the Second Amendment  that YOU people now call established Law and Precedent Clayton .


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

and the USA Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment at lower on the page in the form that is original .   Check it out Clayton .  ---   The Bill of Rights: A Transcription  ---


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2018)

pismoe said:


> so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure .    I do not believe that that is true SPilot .    ------------   ---   First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw  ---



It is true there is nothing I can find that says any Amendment is exempt from being changed or repealed

The fact is that the First will never be able to be repealed because any effort to repeal it will never meet the requirements

What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

i don't see any requirements other than the whim of 2 thirds but thankyou .   But if i read it right repeal of the first is possible at the whim of  2 thirds of taxpayer paid 'public servants' in 'congress who do their jobs for a pay check SPilot


----------



## pismoe (Dec 13, 2018)

So its unlikely to be repealed but it can be done is my only point .   Watch in the future as the Free Speech guarantee in the First is picked apart by 'muslims' .     Its the same thing as lefties , muslims , klayton and Previous Rulings pick apart the 2nd Amendment   SPilot .


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 15, 2018)

pismoe said:


> so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure .    I do not believe that that is true SPilot .    ------------   ---   First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw  ---


It is true - but the process is not simply a majority, it has to be an overwhelming majority.  It would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House, then 2/3 of the Senate, then (unlike most laws) 3/4 of the States.  It's intentionally super-tough to do.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

Pellinore said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure .    I do not believe that that is true SPilot .    ------------   ---   First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw  ---
> ...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  [OVERWHELMING eh ??]     But thankyou for reply  Pellinore but its IMPOSSIBLE to remove the 1st Amendment as example .   What , because a majority [of henchmen with GUNS ]  say it is ok to remove Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and then that is acceptable .     I say that the removal of the 1st Amendment is impossible as this First Amendment RIGHT existed before any Constitution or Bill of RIGHTS .     ----------------- I of course say the same thing about the Second Amendment as the RIGHT of Self Defense and general Defense Precedes and Existed BEFORE the Constitution and Bill of Rights and is a Natural RIGHT or is GOD Given .  ----------------------   and just a mention of the 13th Amendment .   So by a Majority according to some people the 13th Amendment prohibiting Slavery can be done away with by a majority of States , Politicians , Government Men ,  kings men and Government Henchmen .  ------------   that's impossible Pellinore !!


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

course , I do recognize that 'kings men' armed with Guns and wearing special hats of authority can attempt or do anything they like Pellinore .


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 15, 2018)

The U.S. adopted Prohibition through a Constitutional Amendment.  Then, we repealed Prohibition through another Constitutional Amendment.  It can, and has been done.

If people feel strongly enough that Private Citizens should not have the LEGAL right to Keep, and Bear Arms, then they should follow the process that instituted, and repealed Prohibition.  A Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

Pellinore said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure .    I do not believe that that is true SPilot .    ------------   ---   First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw  ---
> ...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  thankyou for reply  Pellinore but its IMPOSSIBLE to remove the 1st Amendment as example .   What , because a majority [of henchmen]  say it is ok to remove Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and then that is acceptable .     I say that the removal is impossible as this First Amendment RIGHT existed before any Constitution or Bill of RIGHTS .     ----------------- I of course say the same thing about the Second Amendment as the RIGHT of Self Defense and general Defense Precedes and Existed BEFORE the Constitution and Bill of Rights and is a Natural RIGHT or is GOD Given .  ----------------------   and just a mention of the 13th Amendment .   So by a Majority the 13th Amendment prohibiting Slavery can be done away with by a majority of States , Politicians , Government Men ,  kings men , Government Henchmen ,


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 15, 2018)

Why is it OK for States and Cities to continue to pass more, and more restrictive gun laws, yet they are not allowed to pass laws affecting Free Speech, and the 1st Amendment?  Why is the Second Amendment the only Constitutionally protected right that can be SEVERELY restricted by all levels of government?


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

----------   just get an overwhelming majority that wants Slavery reinstated and we can have Slavery again eh Pellinore .   ---------------------------   ---     Our Documents - Transcript of 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery (1865)  ---   eh Pellinore and Pilot ??


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 15, 2018)

Yes, Mob Rule can re-institute Slavery.  That is why we are NOT a Democracy, but a Constitutional Representative Republic, but even then, with our Democratic tendencies, bad things can, and do happen.  

Someday, after generations of brainwashing, and indoctrination by the MEDIA, Education, Government, Corporate America, etc we the people may voluntarily vote to give up our legal right to keep, and bear arms.  These entities keep pushing the concept that ALL GUNS ARE BAD, and can act on there own to do bad things.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

now its MOB Rule is it . The whole thread has been about Legal Process in removing RIGHTs and now its about MOB Rule  .    See post number 35 to see Mob Rule in action .   And reinstatement of slavery would be illegal but if it happened it Might be enforced by 'gov ' men' with guns  Pilot .


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

my point is that illegal laws cannot be enforced LEGALLY .  I use the Slavery issue as an example because it is a simple to understand issue .  Slavery cannot ever be legal .    And I say that the 1st Amendment and the SECOND cannot EVER be legally removed no matter how big the majority or size of the MOB  Pilot .


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

while I recognize that Tyranny and tax payer paid men with guns can do whatever they want to do .   See France where Citizens protest or riot but there is a never ending supply of Taxpayer paid 'government' men to beat them into  submission  Pilot .


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 15, 2018)

What is your point?  The "State" sucks?  Yes, it does.  That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back.  Power corrupts.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> What is your point?  The "State" sucks?  Yes, it does.  That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back.  Power corrupts.


------------  .


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 15, 2018)

pismoe said:


> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...


Your pitfall here is that you are confusing natural rights with legal rights.

Natural rights say that each of us has certain rights that are granted to us by God (or whomever), and that we are due simply by existing.  This was a linchpin argument during the Enlightenment, and Thomas Jefferson included the concept in the Declaration of Independence.  


> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



Legal rights are granted to us by a legal system, such as the one set forth by Madison in the Bill of Rights, twelve years later.  They by nature can be changed or eliminated by later laws, for which Article V of the Constitution includes the Amendment process.  


> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.



Note that there are no exceptions in Article V.  That means that yes, if the American people wish it, we can get together and amend the first, second, or any other Amendment right out of existence, as has been done before.  For that matter, we can also change central parts of the Articles and Sections, as has also been done before.  We can do all of this because they are _legal _rights, not _natural _rights; since they were made by men, they can be altered by them.  

I hope that clears some things up for you.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

legal 'rights' are nothing more than GRANTED permissions , favors , grants or 'civil rights' handed out by the Rulers , elites , kings and queen and are in force as long as those mentioned Granters ALLOW  the 'rights and favors' to be in place .  That is why 'inalienable' or 'unalienable'  RIGHTS , natural RIGHTS or God Given RIGHTS that existed and are recognized even before the Bill of RIGHTS are better than 'granted' rights handed out by rulers   Pellinore .   By the way are YOU a foreigner , probably a 'subject' of the 'united kingdom'  Pellinore .


----------



## pismoe (Dec 15, 2018)

yeah , PELLINORE , something to do with 'king arthur'  and such and probably known to 'English subjects' but largely unknown to Americans  Pellinore .


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 16, 2018)

Heh.  I'm American, born in Missouri.  Sir Pellinore was my favorite character from _The Once and Future King, _which I read as a child.  Good catch, though.

And there, now you're getting it.  Natural rights are bestowed by God (or whatever), and legal rights are bestowed by the men - that is, the government, whether it is a king or a Parliament or, in our case, Congress.  The Declaration of Independence specifies the _natural _rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Constitution is a legal document spelling out our system of government, and the Bill of Rights tells us the first ten _legal _rights guaranteed to each of us by the law.  James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution knew the difference, which is why there is an Amendment process for the Constitution, because us mortals can't change natural laws, only legal ones.  

I'm not trying to be contentious here, honest; I'm trying to explain a building block of our Constitution to you.


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 16, 2018)

pismoe said:


> yeah , PELLINORE , something to do with 'king arthur'  and such and probably known to 'English subjects' but largely unknown to Americans  Pellinore .


But what is a pismoe?


----------



## pismoe (Dec 16, 2018)

Hossfly said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > yeah , PELLINORE , something to do with 'king arthur'  and such and probably known to 'English subjects' but largely unknown to Americans  Pellinore .
> ...


---------------------------------------


----------



## regent (Dec 17, 2018)

So our second president, John Adams, was a conservative, and one of his goals  as president was to have his Congress pass  the Sedition Act declaring  the right of free speech illegal. The act was removed by a liberal president, Thomas Jefferson.  


pismoe said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > What is your point?  The "State" sucks?  Yes, it does.  That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back.  Power corrupts.
> ...


It is also why the founders created a democratic Republic, so we might vote instead of fighting back.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Dec 17, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> What is your point?  The "State" sucks?  Yes, it does.  That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back.  Power corrupts.



I want you to bear what you said in mind in every thread you participate on.  Both sides have this tendency to take your ability to resist away under the false presupposition that we have to give up one Liberty in order to exercise another.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 18, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> What is your point?  The "State" sucks?  Yes, it does.  That is why we need to have the power to resist them, and fight back.  Power corrupts.


Ignorant nonsense.

You and others on the right continue to fail to document where the Constitution authorizes a minority of citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to lawlessly overthrow a legitimately elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through treasonous and violent insurrection.

You and others on the right will continue to fail to provide such documentation because that documentation does not exist.

What you ‘think,’ ‘feel,’ or ‘believe’ is irrelevant – and thankfully so.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘overthrow’ an lawfully elected government.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 18, 2018)

^^^^^The Constitution specifically put our right to resist a tyrannical government as the SECOND acknowledged and protected RIGHT.  Why did they put it second if that is such an outrageous theory that government can become too big, too powerful and overly OPPRESSIVE.

Throughout history, and around the world there have been abusive governments.  The USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Germany, many African, and South American countries.  It is VERY common that governments become corrupt, and abuse their citizens.  Yes, it can happen in the U.S.


----------



## regent (Dec 18, 2018)

Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?


----------



## pismoe (Dec 18, 2018)

regent said:


> Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?


-------------------------------   he should have the RIGHT after he has served his time in prison .    He should have all RIGHTS  restored .    Course , not all Criminals should ever be released from prison Regent .


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

If criminals serve their time, or whatever punishment, then they should have their rights restored.  However, many are prohibited from ever touching a gun again depending on the nature of the crime they committed.

Most violence is committed by repeat offenders that can not legally TOUCH A GUN.  Yet they still do, and commit violent crime.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 19, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


*FINE!  WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM!  No civilian needs them.*


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

OldLady said:


> *No civilian needs them.*



Who are you to tell ME what I NEED?  Why do you want to only control, and limit LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?  Why do you want to put us at more risk from attack?

You do realize criminals get whatever they want, and don't care about more laws, right?

The AR-15 is no different from most other rifles.  The vast majority of crime is committed by career FELONS using illegally obtained HAND GUNS, not rifles.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Why is it OK for States and Cities to continue to pass more, and more restrictive gun laws, yet they are not allowed to pass laws affecting Free Speech, and the 1st Amendment?  Why is the Second Amendment the only Constitutionally protected right that can be SEVERELY restricted by all levels of government?


Because it kills people.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > *No civilian needs them.*
> ...


You can shoot a criminal with your other gun(s).  How often have you shot it out with a criminal, with both of you using AR's?  Be honest.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

OldLady said:


> You can shoot a criminal with your other gun(s).  How often have you shot it out with a criminal, with both of you using AR's?  Be honest.



Madame, please try to think about law abiding versus criminals, and limitations of both.  I have never, nor probably will I ever thankfully be in any kind of "shoot out".  However, I do not want to be UNREASONABLY LIMITED in my means to defend myself.  The AR-15 is a common, semi automatic rifle that is very, very rarely used in crime.  Yet because the MEDIA demonizes and sensationalizes it, people like you automatically want to BAN it, and make it illegal for only the law abiding to own.  

You are acting, and reacting, purely with EMOTION.  Please take time to think about it rationally.


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 19, 2018)

regent said:


> Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?


Generally, no, but there are ways to get gun rights restored.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > You can shoot a criminal with your other gun(s).  How often have you shot it out with a criminal, with both of you using AR's?  Be honest.
> ...


This IS my rational stance.  Otherwise, I would be pushing for Full Australia on your asses.  I'll take getting rid of AR's and their ilks, and high capacity mags.  And REAL background checks with full information and a strict registration system with gun owners being responsible for their weapons.  If they are stolen, they must be reported to the cops immediately, or be held accountable if the gun is used in a crime.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

^^^^^So again, only punish the LAW ABIDING.  How about punishing the criminal who steals the gun, and breaks into someone's home, and not the VICTIM of the crime.

We're not giving up any more of our rights including AR-15's, STANDARD capacity magazines, and any and all semi automatic firearms.  My AR-15 is no more "dangerous" than my *74 year old* M1 Carbine with its standard 15, and 30 round magazines.  

The PERSON makes something dangerous, not the tool.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

Pellinore said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?
> ...


It depends on the nature of the crime, and the potential length of the jail sentence, not the actual time spent in jail, but the POSSIBLE length the sentence can be.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> ^^^^^So again, only punish the LAW ABIDING.  How about punishing the criminal who steals the gun, and breaks into someone's home, and not the VICTIM of the crime.
> 
> We're not giving up any more of our rights including AR-15's, STANDARD capacity magazines, and any and all semi automatic firearms.  My AR-15 is no more "dangerous" than my *74 year old* M1 Carbine with its standard 15, and 30 round magazines.
> 
> The PERSON makes something dangerous, not the tool.


We already have laws to punish the criminals.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 19, 2018)

first off repeal the 1934 firearms act


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

OldLady said:


> We already have laws to punish the criminals.



Enforce them!!!  Then we don't need anymore laws that will only effectively punish the LAW ABIDING.  Glad you agree!


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Madame, please try to think about law abiding versus criminals, and limitations of both.  I have never, nor probably will I ever thankfully be in any kind of "shoot out".  However, I do not want to be UNREASONABLY LIMITED in my means to defend myself.  The AR-15 is a common, semi automatic rifle that is very, very rarely used in crime.  Yet because the MEDIA demonizes and sensationalizes it, people like you automatically want to BAN it, and make it illegal for only the law abiding to own.



One problem with that argument is that the AR-15 is also very, very rarely used in home defense.  This whole argument is about striking a balance between the danger one specific type of weapon presents to our community vs. your Constitutional right to own that specific weapon, which Justice Scalia acknowledged in the Heller decision does not extend to the blanket right to own any weapon for any purpose (I'm paraphrasing).  Precedent has already been set, in cases in general dating back to our founding and long before, but specifically in 1934, when Congress and the President agreed that the danger of Tommy Guns on the street outweighed the benefits of law-abiding gun ownership of them.  

As for me, I don't think it is feasible to ban semi-automatic rifles, but I won't argue against a ban on those semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, detachable magazines, and so on, especially in urban areas, as I think those are good indicators that the owner is more likely to use the rifle for mayhem than protection.  I am absolutely in support of banning large-capacity magazines, although I think the number 10 may be too restrictive - I'm more of a 15 or so kind of guy.  Bump stocks have no purpose except to emulate a machine gun, and are ridiculous and indefensible.


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > We already have laws to punish the criminals.
> ...


And this.  Regulation and enforcement are not mutually exclusive.  We absolutely need to better enforce what we've got.  

Remember that maniac that shot up the church in Texas?  The number of times he slipped through the cracks because multiple systems in multiple jurisdictions all failed is enraging.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

Lots of HOPLOPHOBIA out there.  IRRATIONAL fear of firearms.  Thank the overwhelming liberal/progressive media that is able to brainwash the weak minded. 

Guns don't commit crime by themselves.  Law abiding citizens don't commit crime with guns.  Enforce existing laws, prosecute the criminals, and don't PLEA DOWN sentences to next to nothing.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

Pellinore said:


> One problem with that argument is that the AR-15 is also very, very rarely used in home defense.  This whole argument is about striking a balance between the danger one specific type of weapon presents to our community vs. your Constitutional right to own that specific weapon, which Justice Scalia acknowledged in the Heller decision does not extend to the blanket right to own any weapon for any purpose (I'm paraphrasing).  Precedent has already been set, in cases in general dating back to our founding and long before, but specifically in 1934, when Congress and the President agreed that the danger of Tommy Guns on the street outweighed the benefits of law-abiding gun ownership of them.
> 
> As for me, I don't think it is feasible to ban semi-automatic rifles, but I won't argue against a ban on those semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, detachable magazines, and so on, especially in urban areas, as I think those are good indicators that the owner is more likely to use the rifle for mayhem than protection.  I am absolutely in support of banning large-capacity magazines, although I think the number 10 may be too restrictive - I'm more of a 15 or so kind of guy.  Bump stocks have no purpose except to emulate a machine gun, and are ridiculous and indefensible.



The AR-15 is very RARELY used in crime.  The media sensationalizes the few times it has been used to get the weak minded to want a knee jerk reaction to a non issue.

The AR-15 is no different from other semi auto rifles.  A pistol grip, or detachable magazine does not make it any more dangerous.  PEOPLE are dangerous, tools aren't.

Heller, and Miller ruled that owning firearms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and protects COMMON USE firearms.  The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the U.S. thus protected as common use.


----------



## pismoe (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> If criminals serve their time, or whatever punishment, then they should have their rights restored.  However, many are prohibited from ever touching a gun again depending on the nature of the crime they committed.
> 
> Most violence is committed by repeat offenders that can not legally TOUCH A GUN.  Yet they still do, and commit violent crime.


-------------------------------------------------------    i think its FELONS but there are lots of crimes called felonies and to be a FELON doesn't require VIOLENT Crime .   Anyway , its my thought that ALL  nonviolent criminals should get all their RIGHTS Restored and that some violent criminals should never get out of jail / prison .  What is the sense of letting a sex crime child molestor out of prison into neighborhoods with families and kids   Pilot .


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

I agree.  Non violent criminals should have their firearm rights restored.  Some guy that embezzled money, got a Felony, and spent his time in jail should have all his rights after he has paid his debt to society.  

The violent criminal that used a gun in the commission of a crime should NOT get his gun rights back.  IMHO.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 19, 2018)

OldLady said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Why not ? Constitutionally speaking I should be able to own any type of firearm.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Why not ? Constitutionally speaking I should be able to own any type of firearm.



Because Leftists project their fears, and insecurities onto YOU.  They can not trust themselves with the responsibility of owning, and using a firearm safely, so then neither can you.  Also, they listen to the Media's sensationalistic propaganda about guns.

Also, they believe the Constitution is in many ways invalid due to its age.  Their absolute trust in government, and for government to always do the right thing is SCARY.  They are more than willing to give up their freedom for a false sense of security.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 19, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting.  She explains pretty carefully why not.  Of course, you won't read it.

_I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed._
I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

OldLady said:


> By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting.  She explains pretty carefully why not.  Of course, you won't read it.
> 
> _I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed._
> I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.



Just because she is an "Army vet" doesn't make her an expert, especially on what "society needs".  Her arguments are specious at best.  Also, the statistics don't bare out the danger she implies.  

Rifles, including the AR-15 comprise a few hundred deaths per year on average compared to over 6,000 per year where a handgun was used.  Of course you'll just say, well ban handguns also.  The fact remains the AR-15 is used in very few crimes, and very few murders.  It is an extremely small number each year.  Remember, the above number is FOR ALL RIFLES of which the AR-15 is a small subset. 

You are acting out on pure uniformed EMOTION.  
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


----------



## OldLady (Dec 19, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting.  She explains pretty carefully why not.  Of course, you won't read it.
> ...


Ain't nothin' wrong with emotion, dearie.  I hear your facts.  In four "episodes" using AR 15's, 151 innocent people at school or out having a good time, were killed and how many injured, traumatized or maimed for life?  To me, banning AR's is like banning the bump stock.  Neither one of them should have been on the market to begin with.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 19, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Ain't nothin' wrong with emotion, dearie.  I hear your facts.  In four "episodes" using AR 15's, 151 innocent people at school or out having a good time, were killed and how many injured, traumatized or maimed for life?  To me, banning AR's is like banning the bump stock.  Neither one of them should have been on the market to begin with.



There is a lot wrong with just relying on emotion to make arguments.  The AR-15 did not cause one death.  The perpetrator (person) caused the deaths, and violence.  Focus on those that commit criminal acts, not the law abiding.

So, it is OK if a bomb, car, truck, handgun, or other tool is used BY A PERSON to kill?  Isn't it ALREADY ILLEGAL to use them to commit violent crimes?

Oh yeah, forgot, Honey.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 19, 2018)

OldLady said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I don't take anyone seriously that turns their back on the oath they took. To support and defend the Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Dec 20, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> 
> Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government.  It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government.  It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.
> 
> ...



I'm answering you before reading the other pages of posts.  If I'm covering the same ground twice, my apologies:

1)  The Declaration of Independence address unalienable Rights.  The courts and the policies of the federal government make a distinction between unalienable Rights and Inalienable rights

2)  The EARLIEST state court decisions AND the United States Supreme Court ruled in the FIRST rulings that the Right to keep and bear Arms meant that everyone (old, young, women, men and even children) had a Right to keep and bear Arms; that the Right is ABSOLUTE; that the Right isn't even dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3)  The government has the POWER to do anything they damn well please.  What they DO NOT have is the AUTHORITY.  Let me explain:

A man rushes into a bank with a gun.  He demands everyone's money.  If you don't have a gun, you will comply.  He has the POWER to take your money.  He still lacks the AUTHORITY.  It's the same with gun control

4)  America is a funny country.  We lead the world in drug abuse.  70,000 plus people die from drug overdoses each year and we're legalizing drugs.  30,000 die from firearms and they are the only ones who get recognized by the news media - If ti bleeds, it leads.  The irony:  We keep watching the news and buying from their sponsors

5)  Mass shootings, no matter what percentage of the people are killed, gets the most media play time.  Yet, if gun Rights activists got off their lazy butts and worked at a grass roots level, they could stop over 90 percent of ALL mass shootings WITHOUT GUN CONTROL.  They won't do it.  They will proclaim their commitment, but they will not sit down in a think tank atmosphere, listen to the solutions to mass shootings and then act on it.  They will complain about gun control and even donate to people that they know, for a fact, are selling them out... but DO something about it????  Perish the thought.


----------



## regent (Dec 20, 2018)

What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the  first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began  touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Dec 20, 2018)

regent said:


> What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the  first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began  touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.



What fuels the aversion to guns?


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 21, 2018)

regent said:


> What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the  first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began  touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.



Guns are tools to me, but I like a nice, quality, useful tool.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 21, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> ...


----------



## pismoe (Dec 21, 2018)

and just a comment about civilians made by another poster .   I just want to state that Police are also Civilians though many think the police are not Civilians .   Just a comment .


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 21, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



America, even with these mass shootings added in are not in the top 85 nation per capita murders. Most of the crimes are occurring in Democrat dominated cities, since most mass shooters are Democrats.

Do you ever read WHO those people are who do these mass shootings?  NOT a single NRA member involved, not a single mass shooting in RURAL areas where Republicans dominate. *The ones doing these mass shootings are on drugs, or mentally ill. 
*
Take away the AR's, they will just use something else, as they are messed up.

Pay attention to demographics!


----------



## regent (Dec 21, 2018)

Porter Rockwell said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > What is the attraction of guns? I remember entering an army barracks the  first time and at least half of the new recruits ran over to the gun racks on the wall and began  touching the carbines and trying to get them out of the racks. But in fairness the other half tried the bunks out. I think it was the John Wayne and other movies that created the adoration.
> ...


Deaths of innocent people including children.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Dec 21, 2018)

regent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



70,000 + people die due to drug overdoses every year.  Many are young people - fact is MOST are.  We're legalizing drugs.

450,000 Americans die each year due to smoking.  Not only is smoking legal, but society glamorizes it and encourages it.  What made those deaths so much more acceptable?

As many people die in DUIs as do people by firearms each year.  Alcohol is still sold - even in grocery stores.  What makes those deaths more palatable? 

A man can get fall down drunk, get in a car, mow down your family, go to jail for a few years, get let out, and immediately go into a bar, get sloppy fall down drunk and wreck another car.   I hear NOTHING about alcohol bans, licenses to buy booze, waiting periods, or limits on the amount of alcoholic beverages one can buy in any given period of time.

The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense.  Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 21, 2018)

The reason politicians want to disarm the law abiding is to further control them.  It is not about reducing violence, or murders that criminals commit.


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 21, 2018)

Porter Rockwell said:


> The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense.  Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.


The Great American Delusion. Oh well, at least you’ll all be well armed when Putin finally manages to trigger then next civil war.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Dec 21, 2018)

Karl Rand said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense.  Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
> ...



Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know anyone who got into an armed confrontation with state or local LEOs and prevailed?  And if you did know someone like that, would you then continue that insult and infer that some people are suffering a delusion?


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 21, 2018)

Karl Rand said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > The hatred of firearms doesn't make any sense.  Of everything I listed, only the firearm is capable of protecting you and your family's life AND Freedom / Liberty.
> ...



If it is such a delusion why are government, the politicians and elite rich guys like Bloomberg so Hell bent on just taking them away from Law Abiding Citizens?  The criminals are allowed to run wild.


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 21, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...


There’s little point in attempting meaninful discussion with American gun lovers.
As I live a long way from the Land of The Brave and The Free I’m quite happy to sit back and watch you slaughter each other. Have fun boys,


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 21, 2018)

Karl Rand said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Karl Rand said:
> ...



No law abiding citizens that own guns are slaughtering each other.  STOP LYING.


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 22, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> > Pilot1 said:
> ...


Stop simplifying the issue with irrelevant asides and start thinking how those who use arms ‘illegally’ so easily get their hands on them. I know I’m wasting my time trying to get anything like common sense into an American gun lobbyist’s head so I’m outa here.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 22, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



How about defending ALL of the Constitution instead of just the parts that you like.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Dec 22, 2018)

Karl Rand said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Karl Rand said:
> ...



I love Liberty.  Firearms are only a tool to protect Liberty just as the press is a tool for the dissemination for ideal.  As the old maxim goes, the Second Amendment guarantees your First Amendment Rights.


----------



## Flash (Dec 22, 2018)

Any gun control an is a direct violation of our Constitutional right and is illegal.

No law maker has the authority to take that right away.  No judge has the authority to over rule the Bill of Rights.  When they do they are acting illegally.  We let them do it to us and that is wrong.

If the Judaical Branch would apply the same strict scrutiny to Second Amendment rights as they do to other Constitutional rights then there would be very few, if any, gun control laws in this country as our Founding Fathers envisioned.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 22, 2018)

Karl Rand said:


> Stop simplifying the issue with irrelevant asides and start thinking how those who use arms ‘illegally’ so easily get their hands on them. I know I’m wasting my time trying to get anything like common sense into an American gun lobbyist’s head so I’m outa here.



It is perfectly relevant.  Criminals will always get guns illegally or other means to commit violent crime.  The vast majority of guns are owned by law abiding citizens and are a danger to NO ONE.  Pockets of crime exists in inner cities mostly.  Address those violent criminals and the problem is reduced.  Taking away guns from the law abiding does NOTHING except make law abiding citizens VICTIMS, and more at risk from criminals and an over zealous government.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 22, 2018)

Flash said:


> Any gun control an is a direct violation of our Constitutional right and is illegal.
> 
> No law maker has the authority to take that right away.  No judge has the authority to over rule the Bill of Rights.  When they do they are acting illegally.  We let them do it to us and that is wrong.
> 
> If the Judaical Branch would apply the same strict scrutiny to Second Amendment rights as they do to other Constitutional rights then there would be very few, if any, gun control laws in this country as our Founding Fathers envisioned.



I don't seeing States being allowed to pass laws restricting the First Amendment, and Free Speech.  Why are they allowed to pass more gun control laws that restrict the Second Amendment, and LEGAL gun ownership?


----------



## Flash (Dec 22, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Any gun control an is a direct violation of our Constitutional right and is illegal.
> ...




The answer is simple.  Because the courts won't apply the same strict scrutiny standards to the Second Amendment as they do to all the others.  

It is like the courts and the law makers think they can get away with ignoring that right.  It is as if they think the Founding Fathers weren't serious about "shall not be infringed".  

If the courts can ignore the Bill of Rights then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?


----------



## regent (Dec 22, 2018)

The rights in the first amendment are not absolute Congress can change them.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2018)

regent said:


> The rights in the first amendment are not absolute Congress can change them.


There’s a little more to it than that. States have to ratify it.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 28, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> 
> Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government.  It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government.  It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.
> 
> ...


/----/ Good news:
LIer fights constitutional battle over nunchucks
*LIer fights - and wins - 16-year constitutional battle over nunchucks*
Nearly 20 years ago, James Maloney was charged with possessing nunchucks in his Port Washington home. The arrest led him to wage a legal battle that he won earlier this month. 
By Rachel Udarachel.uda@newsday.com  @Rachel_UdaUpdated December 27, 2018 8:45 PM
PRINT SHARE
Using needle and thread, James Maloney repaired the string that bound his nunchucks together.

Maloney had untethered the  martial arts weapon nearly 20 years ago after he was charged with possessing nunchucks in his Port Washington home. His "outrage" over the charge in 2000 pushed him into a yearslong legal battle to strike down the state’s ban on the weapon, which consists of two sticks joined by a cord or chain. 

Earlier this month, a court ruled in Maloney’s favor, deeming the ban unconstitutional.    

“It was more a sense of relief when I saw the decision,” said Maloney, 60, a lawyer and a professor at SUNY Maritime College, who represented himself through most of the litigation.


Maloney said his interest in nunchucks began around the time that New York State outlawed the weapon. In the 1970s, kung fu movies swelled in popularity and in 1973, millions of Americans watched Bruce Lee twirl the weapon in “Enter the Dragon.”


----------



## Marion Morrison (Dec 28, 2018)

miketx said:


> The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.



Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.



Pellinore said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator."  Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government.  For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT.  They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.
> ...



Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 28, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.
> ...



Spoken like a true gun crazy.  By Federal Standards, you are correct.  You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws.  But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home.   You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in.  Hell, run for office, get it changed.  You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level.  Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.


----------



## miketx (Dec 28, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 28, 2018)

miketx said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



And  what part did I lie about?  You ran your mouth.  Now, tell me what part I lied about.  Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Dec 28, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Guns are not toys, dumbass. Guns are tools, deadly tools.


----------



## miketx (Dec 28, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


The part where you refer to guns as toys liar.


----------



## miketx (Dec 28, 2018)

regent said:


> The rights in the first amendment are not absolute Congress can change them.


Always half truths and lies form the left.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 28, 2018)

miketx said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



So, you don't like your Toys to be referred to as Toys.  My bad.


----------



## miketx (Dec 28, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I don't care what you lying scum call them, you just go on proving to anyone looking what an idiot troll you are.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 28, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Some people have poisonous snakes as pets.  In their mind, they are pets.  At least they are honest about it.  My Drill Press is a tool.  My sockets are tools.  Some have tools that they think of as toys the way they collect them.  Gun Crazies collect guns and defend them much like a Cat Lover defends their cats.  Yes, the Other White Meat will get them riled quickly.  Much like your gun crazies when it's pointed out that your guns are your toys.  My old Muscle and Pony Cars were toys but I was honest about it.  Try being honest for a change.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Dec 28, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Go play with a loaded one, faggot.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 28, 2018)

miketx said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Wow, you sure are touchy about your toys being called toys.  No wonder we need some sort of Gun Regulations.  I draw the line at Common Sense Gun Regs that almost everyone can live with.  The fact that your fanatics can't, that means we are doing it right.  If it doesn't piss off both fringe groups, we ain't doing it right.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 28, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Wow, what a comeback.  So you know all about me then.  Tell me, what is YOUR sexual preferences since you seem to know all about mine.  And will you hurry up and get on with your little Revolution so we can get rid of your kind and move on with living a full and meaningful life.


----------



## regent (Dec 30, 2018)

Do gun rights cause the most response on these boards?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 30, 2018)

regent said:


> Do gun rights cause the most response on these boards?



Not even close.


----------

