# Gun Control Is NOT The Answer!



## FJB (May 26, 2022)

I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.


----------



## okfine (May 26, 2022)

FJB said:


> I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.


How easy is it for a Texan to buy a firearm, take it to Mexico and sell it for a profit?


----------



## FJB (May 26, 2022)

okfine said:


> How easy is it for a Texan to buy a firearm, take it to Mexico and sell it for a profit?




Not relevant to any point that I was making.


----------



## Hugo Furst (May 26, 2022)

okfine said:


> How easy is it for a Texan to buy a firearm, take it to Mexico and sell it for a profit?



ask Obama


----------



## miketx (May 26, 2022)

The butchers answer to every shooting is to take guns away from the people who didn't do it.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 26, 2022)

If everybody on Earth stopped doing anything other than standing arm-in-arm singing "Kumbaya" there would be peace.  Especially when, doing nothing else, we all starved to death.

Find the flaw in THAT!


----------



## Donald H (May 26, 2022)

FJB said:


> I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.


Taking away the need so many Americans feel for having a military-like weapon and dressing up in military like costumes, is the key.

That's the logical way to address your point, because no other method can ever succeed.

And so you're raised a relevant point, but can you take it to the next level?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (May 26, 2022)

FJB said:


> I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.


My dear, I just learned today that my new home state is one that has solved the problem of school shootings -- our teachers and school staff are free to carry concealed on campus.

Now, in the conversations I have had with locals since moving here, I have learned that there is a great possibility that every house in my town has at least one gun.  Pretty sweet.  That makes me assume that a LOT of the faculty at our school -- yes, we have one campus for grammar, middle and high school -- are armed on the job.

Safe children.  I like it.


----------



## FJB (May 26, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> My dear, I just learned today that my new home state is one that has solved the problem of school shootings -- our teachers and school staff are free to carry concealed on campus.
> 
> Now, in the conversations I have had with locals since moving here, I have learned that there is a great possibility that every house in my town has at least one gun.  Pretty sweet.  That makes me assume that a LOT of the faculty at our school -- yes, we have one campus for grammar, middle and high school -- are armed on the job.
> 
> Safe children.  I like it.





Well Ohio will soon be allowed to open carry, so hopefully that will apply to teachers as well.


----------



## miketx (May 26, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Taking away the need so many Americans feel for having a military-like weapon and dressing up in military like costumes, is the key.
> 
> That's the logical way to address your point, because no other method can ever succeed.
> 
> And so you're raised a relevant point, but can you take it to the next level?


As usual, the butchers have no answer other than ban non military guns and clothing! Demented!


----------



## Donald H (May 26, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> As usual, the butchers have no answer other than ban non military guns and clothing! Demented!


Nobody can ban the close copies of the military weapons or the peeudo-military clothing.

The point you have to pretend to not understand is that the perceived need for the weapon and the clothing is the problem being flaunted in broad daylight.

We all were 18 at some time but we didn't act out on our feelings on the need to kill. Or if we did then we killed animals or in some cases even just songbirds.

America's murdering of children is related to the 'culture' of wars and killing in foreign lands. America's war with Russia is denying the outlet for those who have to kill the real thing. School children have to do for those killers.


----------



## miketx (May 26, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Nobody can ban the close copies of the military weapons or the peeudo-military clothing.
> 
> The point you have to pretend to not understand is that the perceived need for the weapon and the clothing is the problem being flaunted in broad daylight.
> 
> ...


Lol, projection and babbling! Get rid of them pants!


----------



## Donald H (May 26, 2022)

And so we can conclude with understanding that killing is human nature, but in America's case the behaviour is exacerbated by the 'culture' of continuous wars for decades since WW2 ended.

The anti-gun and the pro-gun advocates can chase their tails around in circles until the rest of the chickens come home, but nothing will be accomplished until the denial is set aside.


----------



## miketx (May 26, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And so we can conclude with understanding that killing is human nature, but in America's case the behaviour is exacerbated by the 'culture' of continuous wars for decades since WW2 ended.
> 
> The anti-gun and the pro-gun advocates can chase their tails around in circles until the rest of the chickens come home, but nothing will be accomplished until the denial is set aside.


Man these butchers lie continually.


----------



## Pellinore (May 26, 2022)

FJB said:


> I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.


Correct!  
But you're misrepresenting the argument, here.  Those who cry for "taking away everyone's weapons" are in the minority, and have very little political power or chance of success.  The majority of calls right now are for HB8, or age limits, or increasing other conditions or qualifications on who can buy which firearms.  

Justice Scalia, in his Heller decision, noted that:


> "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."


and


> [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.








						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




As ideas go, you have to admit, it's not completely bonkers.


----------



## miketx (May 26, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Correct!
> But you're misrepresenting the argument, here.  Those who cry for "taking away everyone's weapons" are in the minority, and have very little political power or chance of success.  The majority of calls right now are for HB8, or age limits, or increasing other conditions or qualifications on who can buy which firearms.
> 
> Justice Scalia, in his Heller decision, noted that:
> ...


Start rounding them up then.


----------



## CommieKillingMommy (May 26, 2022)

FJB said:


> I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.


Government control is never the answer


----------



## FJB (May 26, 2022)

FJB said:


> Well Ohio will soon be allowed to open carry, so hopefully that will apply to teachers as well.




Hold on, this law might be for concealed purposes only, not too sure, but it's better than nothing.







__





						What I Don't Understand About Ohio's New Gun Laws
					

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that we are now allowed to openly carry,.. BUT if I ever choose to carry, I would want to be properly trained first, and if I am with somebody who is carrying, I would want to know that they are properly trained to protect me. You can't drive a car until you pass a...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Pellinore (May 26, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Start rounding them up then.


Good heavens, no.  Even if Congress voted 535-0 against gun ownership tomorrow, the last thing I'd want is door-to-door collection squads.  

To be clear, it is increasing conditions or qualifications to buy firearms that is a non-bonkers idea.  Collecting them by legislative fiat would be absolute bonkerness on several levels.


----------



## miketx (May 26, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Good heavens, no.  Even if Congress voted 535-0 against gun ownership tomorrow, the last thing I'd want is door-to-door collection squads.
> 
> To be clear, it is increasing conditions or qualifications to buy firearms that is a non-bonkers idea.  Collecting them by legislative fiat would be absolute bonkerness on several levels.


Figures, most lefties are spineless.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 27, 2022)

There is one major problem with allowing teachers to be armed.

That is - so many of the indoctrinators are liberal Democrats that it's a certainty that many of them will start killing students who resist indoctrination and then the rest of their ilk will cry out for gun control .  

Really, the liberal hive-mind DOES work that way!


----------



## miketx (May 27, 2022)

HenryBHough said:


> There is one major problem with allowing teachers to be armed.
> 
> That is - so many of the indoctrinators are liberal Democrats that it's a certainty that many of them will start killing students who resist indoctrination and then the rest of their ilk will cry out for gun control .
> 
> Really, the liberal hive-mind DOES work that way!


I never said give just anyone a gun.


----------



## Peace (May 27, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> As usual, the butchers have no answer other than ban non military guns and clothing! Demented!


We don’t have to ban them but regulate them ( guns not clothing but clothing could also be added ) can be done and you do realize if has been done before?

So banning does no good but regulating them can be more effective…


----------



## JustAGuy1 (May 27, 2022)

okfine said:


> How easy is it for a Texan to buy a firearm, take it to Mexico and sell it for a profit?



Ask Eric Holder, he did it in volumes.


----------



## okfine (May 27, 2022)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Ask Eric Holder, he did it in volumes.


Is Holder a Texan?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (May 27, 2022)

okfine said:


> Is Holder a Texan?



He, as you know has A LOT of experience selling guns in Mexico.


----------



## Bezukhov (May 27, 2022)

Here's a possible solution from the always reasonable NRA

*All Guns to be Armed with Guns*








						All guns to be armed with guns - The Rochdale Herald
					

In the wake of the latest mass shooting of innocent people to take place on U.S. soil, the National Rifle Association has issued a warning that the only -




					rochdaleherald.co.uk
				



*Satire*


----------



## flan327 (Jun 17, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> My dear, I just learned today that my new home state is one that has solved the problem of school shootings -- our teachers and school staff are free to carry concealed on campus.
> 
> Now, in the conversations I have had with locals since moving here, I have learned that there is a great possibility that every house in my town has at least one gun.  Pretty sweet.  That makes me assume that a LOT of the faculty at our school -- yes, we have one campus for grammar, middle and high school -- are armed on the job.
> 
> Safe children.  I like it.


Armed TEACHERS

BIG MISTAKE


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Jun 17, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Armed TEACHERS
> 
> BIG MISTAKE


Thank you for sharing your opinion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 17, 2022)

Indeed.   Just ask Brandon.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 17, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Thank you for sharing your opinion.


Truth HURTS

Just read an interview with a RETIRED MALE TEACHER who agrees 100%


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Jun 17, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Truth HURTS
> 
> Just read an interview with a RETIRED MALE TEACHER who agrees 100%


Thanks again for letting us know what you feel.  We appreciate it.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 17, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Thanks again for letting us know what you feel.  We appreciate it.


Oh PLEASE 
JUST
QUIT

SARCASM IS NOT YOUR FORTE


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Jun 17, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Oh PLEASE
> JUST
> QUIT
> 
> SARCASM IS NOT YOUR FORTE


Well, it's okay that you feel that way.


----------



## SavannahMann (Jun 17, 2022)

miketx said:


> I never said give just anyone a gun.



The Second Amendment says just that.


----------



## miketx (Jun 17, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> The Second Amendment says just that.


You're a liar like always. ALWAYS!


----------



## SavannahMann (Jun 17, 2022)

miketx said:


> You're a liar like always. ALWAYS!



Where in the Second does it say that only some people can keep and bear arms? What does it say? 

Shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

There is nothing in the Constitution that says Rights may be stripped permanently. 

It does say you can be deprived of life, liberty, and property only by sue process of law. But we are not taking about liberties. We are talking about rights. 

So when a person gets out of prison that individual must have all rights returned to them. The right to vote. The right to keep and bear arms. 

That is what the Constitution says. And that is what our Founders did. 

Show me where I am wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 17, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> There is nothing in the Constitution that says Rights may be stripped permanently.
> It does say you can be deprived of life, liberty, and property only by sue process of law. But we are not taking about liberties. We are talking about rights.


If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.


----------



## miketx (Jun 17, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Where in the Second does it say that only some people can keep and bear arms? What does it say?
> 
> Shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> ...


Liar, i don't usually bother with you filth but ok. Now I know you will just spew and deflect and lie more, but it'll just show what you are even more.


The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. So, when people commit crimes and end up in prison, they loose that right among other things. The 2nd doesn't apply to those people. Now, spew! Spew it!  Lie lie! Lmao.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 17, 2022)

Donald H said:


> We all were 18 at some time but we didn't act out on our feelings on the need to kill. Or if we did then we killed animals or in some cases even just songbirds.


Are you fucking kidding?  you killed animals and songbirds to act out on your feelings?   I'm not really for red-flag laws but you're a poster child for those who are for them.  I might even go along in your case.

You're a sick mother fucker.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 17, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Correct!
> But you're misrepresenting the argument, here.  Those who cry for "taking away everyone's weapons" are in the minority, and have very little political power or chance of success.  The majority of calls right now are for HB8, or age limits, or increasing other conditions or qualifications on who can buy which firearms.
> 
> Justice Scalia, in his Heller decision, noted that:
> ...



Both you and Justice Scalia were completely wrong.  The 2nd Amendment doesn't just secure the right to keep and bear arms. 

The 2nd Amendment FORBIDS the government from infringing on the right. 

In order to violate, or infringe, on the right to keep and bear arms, or to force or enforce limits, the government would have to act on authority they explicitly do not have.  Nothing in the Constitution was ever intended to grant the government authority not explicitly granted in the Constitution - how could it.  To do so would have nullified the Constitution immediately upon it's enactment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

CommieKillingMommy said:


> Government control is never the answer


Off topic but I've just got to say, your avatar and your screen name are awesome!


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Good heavens, no.  Even if Congress voted 535-0 against gun ownership tomorrow, the last thing I'd want is door-to-door collection squads.
> 
> To be clear, it is increasing conditions or qualifications to buy firearms that is a non-bonkers idea.  Collecting them by legislative fiat would be absolute bonkerness on several levels.


And the conditions and qualifications get ever more restrictive until there are no new gun sales at all.  Then the conditions on the red-flag laws start a slow journey down the same slope as gun purchases. 

Gun laws only strip guns from the law abiding.  What you're proposing won't give you the results you think it will unless your goal is purely to disarm the law-abiding and enable complete tyranny.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

Peace said:


> We don’t have to ban them but regulate them ( guns not clothing but clothing could also be added ) can be done and you do realize if has been done before?
> 
> So banning does no good but regulating them can be more effective…


Regulate them how?  What regulation that doesn't keep the guns out of a law-abiding citizen could possibly do anything at all - good or bad?  Law breakers don't care, they'll still have them.  Regulating them in a way that keeps them out of people's hands is not regulation, it's banning them.  So tell us what regulations would keep criminals from killing people.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Truth HURTS
> 
> Just read an interview with a RETIRED MALE TEACHER who agrees 100%


You just read the opinion of one man and you cite that as evidence that teachers shouldn't be armed?  That makes two of you. Now what?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> You're a liar like always. ALWAYS!


So you suggested arming teachers but you don't really want them to have guns?  I don't get it.  Are you trying to soften the expression of your views so the leftists don't think you're a wacko?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Where in the Second does it say that only some people can keep and bear arms? What does it say?
> 
> Shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> ...



Actually, the 15th Amendment allows, but doesn't require, that the right to vote be stripped in the case of serious crime.  It is the only right that the Constitution allows to be stripped for criminals and yet it's the one the left wants most to give them back.

But you're right on all the rest.  No one would argue that a person having been convicted of a crime suddenly can be jailed for future crimes without a trial and jury of their peers or that they can be deprived of a lawyer or that their home can be searched for anything at any time after a conviction.  And yet they think that they can strip the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
> And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.


Not true.  But if you believe so, why are you even in this conversation?  According to you, the Constitution is already a red-flag law and all that's needed is whatever the government decides is due process to take your guns for any reason.  

If the government can take any right with "due process" then a judge can order you imprisoned without a trial because, for any reason the government chooses, they can strip your right to a trial by jury of peers.  And you can't fight it because they stripped you of the right to an attorney.  And you can't challenge the due process because they stripped you of the right to due process.

Just like the general welfare clause, the due process clauses grant no power or authority to the government.  Due process simply means that the other powers of government to take life, liberty, or property, are not plenary power that can be exercised by a stroke of the President's pen but that, instead, when exercising the power and authority granted elsewhere there must be due process.

It amazes me that people believe such stupid shit. 

​


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> Liar, i don't usually bother with you filth but ok. Now I know you will just spew and deflect and lie more, but it'll just show what you are even more.
> 
> 
> The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. So, when people commit crimes and end up in prison, they loose that right among other things. The 2nd doesn't apply to those people. Now, spew! Spew it!  Lie lie! Lmao.



You've never actually read the Constitution, have you?  The 2nd Amendment says nothing at all of what you think it says.  

Constitution or not, 2nd Amendment or not, all people, everywhere in the world, have the right to keep and bear arms.  Almost every country in the world infringes on that right or otherwise bans the exercise of the right but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.  Self defense from armed attack by criminals as well as defense from tyranny of government are fundamental  human rights, often infringed but never stripped.

What the 2nd Amendment says is simply that within the United States purview, that right can not be infringed.  

Since the powers of the government are only those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.  The Necessary and Proper clause explicitly restricts congressional power to enacting those laws necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers.

Do you believe that the Congress has the power to do anything it wishes and there are zero constitutional constraints on Congress? If not from the Constitution, then, from where does government get it's power and authority over the people?  Is it natural power that they are born into like a king?  Who gave any set of people the power and authority to govern?

Or do you believe that Congress and the Government are limited by the Constitution?  If so, where in the Constitution do they get the power or authority to act outside of the Constitution?  If it was the Constitution that created government, how did government get power not in the Constitution?  If they are created by the Constitution, and they were, then they must absolutely be limited by the Constitution.  

So if they are limited by the Constitution, where do they get the power to strip anyone of any right?  Please quote the constitutional clause that gives such a power.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 18, 2022)

FJB said:


> I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.


If you believe gun control is not the answer but every country with gun control, enjoys using guns and low gun incidents, you need to re-evaluate


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 18, 2022)

FJB said:


> I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.



Gun control is not the answer.

We know this for a FACT.

The facts are....






						Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
					

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United States, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development




					www.gunpolicy.org
				




USA - not much gun control, easy availability of guns, even for criminals. 
12.09 gun deaths per 100,000
21.05 male guns deaths per 100,000 males
4.38 gun homicides per 100,000 people 

UK - a lot of gun control, quite difficult for an individual to get a hold of a gun, very hard for criminals to get hold of guns
0.17 gun deaths per 100,000 (71.1 times higher in the USA per capita)
0.32 male guns deaths per 100,000 males
0.02 gun homicides per 100,000 people (219 times higher)

Yep, we know gun control doesn't work, because it clearly doesn't fucking work in the UK. I mean, only 219 times (per capita) lower murder rate. Pathetic. Nothing at all. A minor technicality there.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Jun 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Are you fucking kidding?  you killed animals and songbirds to act out on your feelings?   I'm not really for red-flag laws but you're a poster child for those who are for them.  I might even go along in your case.
> 
> You're a sick mother fucker.


Generally well known that serial killers get their start on the neighbors' pets.  Even Canadian ones.  What's Canada's equivalent of the FBI?


----------



## flan327 (Jun 18, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Well, it's okay that you feel that way.


Condescending witch


----------



## flan327 (Jun 18, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Generally well known that serial killers get their start on the neighbors' pets.  Even Canadian ones.  What's Canada's equivalent of the FBI?


The Mounties

Lol


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 18, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Gun control is not the answer.
> 
> We know this for a FACT.
> 
> ...


the UK has always had a lower murder rate than the US even before all their draconian gun laws were passed in the 60's.

In 1950 the US murder rate was about what it is today
In 1950 the UK murder rate was about what it is today.

The US has since 1950 tried an assault weapon ban, has imposed BG checks to be performed by licensed dealers and has passed thousands of gun laws and yet the murder rate is still what it was in 1950.

The UK has since 1950 banned entire classes of firearms, restricts almost everyone from owning firearms and yet their murder rate is still about what it was in 1950.

Gun laws have made absolutely no difference on murder rates.


----------



## miketx (Jun 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You've never actually read the Constitution, have you?  The 2nd Amendment says nothing at all of what you think it says.
> 
> Constitution or not, 2nd Amendment or not, all people, everywhere in the world, have the right to keep and bear arms.  Almost every country in the world infringes on that right or otherwise bans the exercise of the right but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.  Self defense from armed attack by criminals as well as defense from tyranny of government are fundamental  human rights, often infringed but never stripped.
> 
> ...


Excellent off base remark, having nothing to do with what I said.


----------



## miketx (Jun 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So you suggested arming teachers but you don't really want them to have guns?  I don't get it.  Are you trying to soften the expression of your views so the leftists don't think you're a wacko?


Excellent comment having nothing to do with what I said.


----------



## miketx (Jun 18, 2022)

HenryBHough said:


> Find the flaw in THAT!


No one will cooperate long enough to do that.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Jun 18, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Condescending witch


Well, at least you have an opinion.


----------



## SavannahMann (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
> And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.



Preposterous. 

The Founders never intended any such restriction on the rights. In fact. They expressly forbade it. 

New York in 1786 mandated that any Able Bodied Male who was qualified for Military service be required to own a suitable firearm. 

And we have drafted Felons into the military over the centuries of history. 

World War II felons who had served their sentence were drafted. So the idea that the Founders believed or intended that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute garbage. 






						Freedom vs Liberty
					

Tim Lewis




					hhjonline.com
				




Even Gun Control believers in history have agreed that Military Type Arms were allowed to be owned by the citizens. 









						UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




And that was the law that restricted automatic weapons. Restricted but not banned.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> Excellent off base remark, having nothing to do with what I said.


So you're saying that you actually are not able to identify the place in the Constitution that says the government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## miketx (Jun 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So you're saying that you actually are not able to identify the place in the Constitution that says the government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


Keep babbling, you're doing well. For some reason when I wrote this:

_The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms._

It goes beyond your ability to comprehend.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> Keep babbling, you're doing well. For some reason when I wrote this:
> 
> _The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms._
> 
> It goes beyond your ability to comprehend.


And then you said the government has the right to take the right away.


----------



## miketx (Jun 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> And then you said the government has the right to take the right away.


Are you that stupid? Do convicted felons get to keep and bear arms? No, they don't! They lost that right! Are you really that goddamned stupid that you think convicted felons can be armed legally?

Please stop responding to me. I can't take that much stupid.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 18, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Preposterous.
> The Founders never intended any such restriction on the rights. In fact. They expressly forbade it.


None of your examples prove your point - the fact someone did not choose to remove a right thru due process doe snot mean a right cannot be removed though due process.
And there's no recod of the forbiddance you claim.


----------



## SavannahMann (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> None of your examples prove your point - the fact someone did not choose to remove a right thru due process doe snot mean a right cannot be removed though due process.
> And there's no recod of the forbiddance you claim.



What part of Shall Not Be Infringed don’t you understand? You have no right under the Constitution to do so.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> Keep babbling, you're doing well. For some reason when I wrote this:
> 
> _The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms._
> 
> It goes beyond your ability to comprehend.


MILITIA


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 18, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> What part of Shall Not Be Infringed don’t you understand? You have no right under the Constitution to do so.


You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 18, 2022)

flan327 said:


> MILITIA


People.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> People.


ARE YOU OKAY?

Many people
Both gun nuts
And the opposite 
Have NO IDEA what the SECOND AMENDMENT actually says


----------



## flan327 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> People.


Are they roller skating?
Drinking tea?
Walking dogs?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 18, 2022)

flan327 said:


> ARE YOU OKAY?
> 
> Many people
> Both gun nuts
> ...


-I- do.
I also understand the meaning of the text.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> -I- do.
> I also understand the meaning of the text.


You don’t seem to

IMO


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> Are you that stupid? Do convicted felons get to keep and bear arms? No, they don't! They lost that right! Are you really that goddamned stupid that you think convicted felons can be armed legally?
> 
> Please stop responding to me. I can't take that much stupid.


Yes, convicted felons can legally bear arms.  Common law accepts that they do not have access to their guns while in prison but, according to the Constitution, they cannot be stripped of the right.  For 179 years in this country, their guns were still theirs, still waiting for them when they were released.  For 179 years, the Congress and the Government knew that such a thing was unconstitutional.  It wasn't until 1968 that the government and Congress figured that the people were far enough away from the memory of actual liberty that they could get away with such an infringement.

The laws forbidding it are unconstitutional - I refer you to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and to American  Jurisprudence.  Both make it clear that unconstitutional legislation are not law and cannot be treated as law.  It is only through tyranny that the government uses the force of it's guns to enforce such unconstitutional measures.

Once again, and I know you won't do it again because you can't do it - please tell where in the Constitution the government gets the authority to take a person's human rights by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## miketx (Jun 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Yes, convicted felons can legally bear arms.


This boy is eat up with a dumb ass. Yes, let's arm the murderers and rapists and child molesters. Please, for God's sake stop.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.


You have no understanding of the Constitution, whatsoever.  If what you say were so then the Constitution is meaningless; there are no rights, only privileges, and any judge, through any process, could strip you of your rights.  And, in fact, in no jury trial was any defendant notified that their right to keep and bear arms were being tried and in no sentencing ever, did any judge tell a defendant that their right to keep and bear arms was revoked - so even by your illegitimate understanding of due process, there was no due process.  The entire meaning of due process, going back to the Magna Carte, was that a person was notified and able to defend their rights.

But, you're assigning to due process the power for the government to do things not already permitted in the Constitution.  As long as a court rules that a person no longer has the right to a trial by jury, then can the court sentence someone to life in prison without a jury trial?  

But even this ridiculous example would offer more protection than you're suggesting due process offers.  By your example, there would not even be a hearing to say that the right to a trial was stripped, the judge could simply go straight from indictment to sentencing.  

To make this stripping of the right to trial match the scenario that you say gives the government the right to strip someone's right to keep and bear arms, all that would need to be done is for Congress to pass a bill that says convicted felons no longer have the right to a trial by jury or the right to legal representation, or the right to a speedy trial.  Congress could take away all rights, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, Amendments gone.  

In fact, why can't Congress create a law stripping the right to due process on conviction of a crime?  And if they can do it based on conviction of a crime, why can't they do it based on accusation of a crime?  Or based on skin color or religion?

So, please make it clear, you're making the claim that the Congress can take any right from any person for any reason by passing a bill that says they can do it.  Correct?


----------



## miketx (Jun 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You have no understanding of the Constitution, whatsoever.  If what you say were so then the Constitution is meaningless; there are no rights, only privileges, and any judge, through any process, could strip you of your rights.  And, in fact, in no jury trial was any defendant notified that their right to keep and bear arms were being tried and in no sentencing ever, did any judge tell a defendant that their right to keep and bear arms was revoked - so even by your illegitimate understanding of due process, there was no due process.  The entire meaning of due process, going back to the Magna Carte, was that a person was notified and able to defend their rights.
> 
> But, you're assigning to due process the power for the government to do things not already permitted in the Constitution.  As long as a court rules that a person no longer has the right to a trial by jury, then can the court sentence someone to life in prison without a jury trial?
> 
> ...


Ignore list, troll.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And there's no recod of the forbiddance you claim.



And just what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?  Does it forbid or does it empower?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.


You are an idiot of un-fucking-believable proportions.  Stripping the right IS infringing you fucking moron.  And due process is a limitation on government power, not a grant of absolute government power.

Please quit pretending to be a 2nd Amendment supporter. you're a gun controller through and through.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.







__





						What Did The Founders Mean by 'Due Process of Law?'
					

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution each have a Due Process Clause. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibited the federal government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law...




					www.americanthinker.com
				








__





						History of the Due Process Clause, Sample of Essays
					

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a clause called Due Process Clause and it is stated in the passage “no person… shall be




					educheer.com
				












						5th Amendment Due Process Clause
					

The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees that the government must obey written laws. It promises that your life, liberty and property will be protected, but what does that mean exactly?



					www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com
				





Please provide the source of your opinion that the due process clause empowers the government to strip any right from any person by whatever steps or process that the government, itself, decides is "due process".


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> This boy is eat up with a dumb ass. Yes, let's arm the murderers and rapists and child molesters. Please, for God's sake stop.


First, they're armed anyway.  Gun control only prohibits the law-abiding.

Second, it doesn't matter what you wish about criminals accessing guns, the Constitution forbids infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  Does that make the world a more dangerous place?  Well, compared to an absolute authoritarian government with brutal law-enforcement standing on every corner, in every office, watching everything you do, yes, probably so.  With liberty comes risk and danger.  As Benjamin Franklin said, anyone who gives up a little liberty in order to get a little safety deserves neither.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 18, 2022)

miketx said:


> Ignore list, troll.


Then you surrender and admit you cannot defend your statement with logic or understanding of the Constitution.  Run like a coward and hide and, to quote the words of Samuel Adams: Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 20, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> And just what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?


This forbids infringements.
Not every restriction on the the right to keeps and bear arms in an infringement.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 20, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You are an idiot of un-fucking-believable proportions.  Stripping the right IS infringing you fucking moron.


I'm sorry you don't like the fact you're wrong, but there's nothing I can do about it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 20, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> _Lewis v. United States_, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)Please provide the source of your opinion that the due process clause empowers the government to strip any right from any person by whatever steps or process that the government, itself, decides is "due process".


_Lewis v. United States_, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
(b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm.  And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with _Burgett v. Texas,_ 389 U. S. 109; _United States v. Tucker,_ 404 U. S. 443; and _Loper v. Beto,_ 405 U. S. 473.  Pp.  445 U. S. 65-67.


----------



## miketx (Jun 20, 2022)

okfine said:


> How easy is it for a Texan to buy a firearm, take it to Mexico and sell it for a profit?


I don't know, but only criminal scum like you would do that.


----------



## okfine (Jun 20, 2022)

miketx said:


> I don't know, but only criminal scum like you would do that.


Criminal is you breathing.


----------



## miketx (Jun 20, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You are an idiot of un-fucking-believable proportions.  Stripping the right IS infringing you fucking moron.  And due process is a limitation on government power, not a grant of absolute government power.
> 
> Please quit pretending to be a 2nd Amendment supporter. you're a gun controller through and through.


I wonder why this idiot wants murderers and rapists and other violent scum to be able to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> This forbids infringements.
> Not every restriction on the the right to keeps and bear arms in an infringement.


Please google the meaning of infringement.

And then load up your guns and take them to your nearest FBI office and turn them in.

You've already surrendered your right to keep and bear arms; you have already given them  permission to take anything you own for any reason they choose.  When you reply on a gun rights thread, you're really just asking them to not come take your guns today.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sorry you don't like the fact you're wrong, but there's nothing I can do about it.



Can you give a single example of any gun control law in existence today that you would agree is infringement?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

miketx said:


> I wonder why this idiot wants murderers and rapists and other violent scum to be able to keep and bear arms.


First off, the ban on felons includes felony litterers as well as violent felons so quit lying.  

I don't want murderers and rapists to even have access to air, let alone guns.  So tell me, do the laws against them having guns prevent them from being murderers and rapists?  Do the laws against murder and rape keep them from being murderers and rapists.

Have you ever made the argument against gun control that criminals won't obey the law?  Have you ever argued that gun control laws won't work?  Do you believe gun control laws do work?

It isn't a question of what I want or don't want.  It is a question of what is constitutional and legal. If you accept that the government can do any single thing that is unconstitutional then you must accept that they can do any unconstitutional thing they wish because you've accepted that they are not bound by the Constitution.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

miketx said:


> I wonder why this idiot wants murderers and rapists and other violent scum to be able to keep and bear arms.


And what's with the batwings?  Are you a Motorola man?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> _Lewis v. United States_, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
> (b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm.  And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with _Burgett v. Texas,_ 389 U. S. 109; _United States v. Tucker,_ 404 U. S. 443; and _Loper v. Beto,_ 405 U. S. 473.  Pp.  445 U. S. 65-67.


I didn't ask you what the Court said. To ask the government what the powers of the government are is pretty stupid.  

Lewis makes the assumption that Congress is permitted to take the right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress passes a law that says it is so.  The validity of that portion of GCA 1968 was not challenged so Lewis wasn't about the power of Congress to make the law, it was about whether the conviction was due process in the enforcement of the law.    It wasn't about whether due process itself gave the government the power but only whether the conviction served as due process. 

_*Although the phrase “due process of law” first appeared in the fourteenth century with a very narrow and technical meaning involving the service of appropriate writs, the American Founding generation likely identified the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause with the clauses, prevalent in state constitutions in 1791, that required governmental deprivations of life, liberty, or property to conform to “the law of the land,” as well as appropriate notice and ability to defend oneself in court.*_​​*There are certain respects in which “due process of law,” understood as equivalent to “the law of the land,” uncontroversially regulates the substance of governmental action. Most obviously, the core meaning of “law of the land” provisions, dating back to the Magna Carta, is to secure the principle of legality by ensuring that executive and judicial deprivations are grounded in valid legal authority. In this respect, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause limits the substance of executive or judicial action by requiring it to be grounded in law.*​








						The Heritage Guide to the Constitution
					

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.




					www.heritage.org
				




The basis of due process for hundreds of years and including when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created was that life, liberty, or property could only be taken when given due process according to the law of the land.  That Congress passes a bill and the President signs it does NOT necessarily make it the law of the land, as proven by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

_*This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.*_​
The original intent, as I have explained to you many times, of the entire Bill of Rights and specifically of the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause is that it limits government authority to only be able to do things within the law and not arbitrarily.  It is not intended, and to argue that it was is simply ludicrous, to empower the government to pass any law they wish and get any judge or court to apply it to any person taking any right from anyone.

So, even though the Court ruled that the trial was due process does not mean that Congress had the authority to enact a gun ban and the Constitution expressly forbids it.  Therefore, the law was not valid and not the established law of the land, constitutionally so due process cannot enforce it.  

Would you argue that everything the Court says is the actual meaning and intent of the Constitution?  Does the Court ever get it wrong?    Or are you a sheep, accepting what the government tells you is the power of the government?


----------



## miketx (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I don't want murderers and rapists to even have access to air, let alone guns


Both sides of his mouth.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Please google the meaning of infringement.


Does a city ordnance that prohibits firing gun straight into the air infringe on the right to keep and bear ams?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Can you give a single example of any gun control law in existence today that you would agree is infringement?


Almost all of them.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Does a city ordnance that prohibits firing gun straight into the air infringe on the right to keep and bear ams?


Mr. You-didn't-answer-my-question appears to be avoiding the question.  Define infringe.

The right is not to keep and bear and recklessly shoot arms.  The right is to keep and bear arms.  Shooting it recklessly is criminal and not protected.  Shooting in self-defense is not protected.  Are you suggesting that the government can make it illegal to use your M-14 to defend your life?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Mr. You-didn't-answer-my-question appears to be avoiding the question.  Define infringe.
> The right is not to keep and bear and recklessly shoot arms.


So...  no.  It doesn't.
Thus, not all restrictions are infringements.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Almost all of them.


So where did Congress get the authority to pass some infringements and not others?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So where did Congress get the authority to pass some infringements and not others?


Congress does not have the authority to enact infringements, as all the powers of Congress are modified by the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> So...  no.  It doesn't.
> Thus, not all restrictions are infringements.


Shooting is not keeping or bearing.  Completely different topic.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Congress does not have the authority to enact infringements, as all the powers of Congress are modified by the 2nd Amendment.


Then if they do not have the right to infringe the law banning felons from owning guns is unconstitutional and due process cannot protect the government in supporting the application of the law.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 21, 2022)

miketx said:


> The butchers answer to every shooting is to take guns away from the people who didn't do it.


We know who the REAL butchers are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 22, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Shooting is not keeping or bearing.  Completely different topic.


The "use" of a firearm, under the protection of the 2nd, commonly, if not most often, involves shooting said firearm
Thus, referring to the restriction in question, not all restrictions are infringements.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 22, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Then if they do not have the right to infringe the law banning felons from owning guns is unconstitutional...


Rights may be removed thru due process.
The state cannot infringe on a right someone does not have.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The "use" of a firearm, under the protection of the 2nd, commonly, if not most often, involves shooting said firearm
> Thus, referring to the restriction in question, not all restrictions are infringements.


Have you never read the 2nd Amendment?   Where in the Amendment is the word, "use"?  Gawd, you are one stupid fucking idiot.  You're why we will soon be without our guns.  When the people who pretend to defend the right to keep and bear arms are, in actuality, defending the Government's ever increasing infringements, the battle is already lost.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rights may be removed thru due process.
> The state cannot infringe on a right someone does not have.


I've provided you with the original intent, even from modern analysis, of due process and it is not what you are claiming.  Nowhere does it say the government can strip any right with due process.  They can exercise the powers given in the Constitution only when providing due process.   If they didn't already have the authority then due process doesn't give it to them.

Once again, you prove that you have already surrendered any liberty that you have and you're just arguing, begging, that the government doesn't take all your rights, with you having already agreed with them that they have the power to  take them.


----------

