Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional

[Wry Catcher]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

Yes they had an absolute right. None of them were guilty of any crime, all of them could or did pass background checks.
There should be no restrictions whatsoever. The 2A is very clear about this.

Do you have any evidence they all passed a comprehensive background check? Even if true, and considering the source (Rabbi), nothing should be taken as true without confirmation.

What is a "comprehensive" background check?

Local, state and FBI records of arrests, criminal and civil judgments, any civil restraining orders, civil detentions as a danger to his or her self or as a danger to him/herself or others, ever detained in drunk tank, DUI's, drug addicted and periods of resisting arrest. It's not perfect or infallible; keep in mind the background done before an offer of employment for LE requires much much more, even including written and oral psychological evaluations, at least two and sometimes three interviews with agency supervisors and management, interviews with persons who have known the candidate as a child / teen and at least one year on probation before a permanent offer of employment. And that's not all.

 

[Vigilante]

• Trump Supports The 2A more Strongly than Any Previous Republican Nominee
  Ammoland ^ | 9 June, 2016 | Dean Weingarten
  Many people have said or written that while Donald Trump supports the Second Amendment, talk is cheap, and we do not have actions to back up the talk.There is some truth in that. Donald Trump does not have a legislative record to show actions to back up his words. But words have meanings. If a nominee is unwilling to give us words in support of the Second Amendment, why should we believe that he will go to bat for us in the legislature, in the executive branch, or in the courts? If the nominee is too concerned with being...

 

[2aguy]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

Yes they had an absolute right. None of them were guilty of any crime, all of them could or did pass background checks.
There should be no restrictions whatsoever. The 2A is very clear about this.

Do you have any evidence they all passed a comprehensive background check? Even if true, and considering the source (Rabbi), nothing should be taken as true without confirmation.

What is a "comprehensive" background check?

Local, state and FBI records of arrests, criminal and civil judgments, any civil restraining orders, civil detentions as a danger to his or her self or as a danger to him/herself or others, ever detained in drunk tank, DUI's, drug addicted and periods of resisting arrest. It's not perfect or infallible; keep in mind the background done before an offer of employment for LE requires much much more, even including written and oral psychological evaluations, at least two and sometimes three interviews with agency supervisors and management, interviews with persons who have known the candidate as a child / teen and at least one year on probation before a permanent offer of employment. And that's not all.

And background checks for work.....work is not a constitutionally protected Right.......

I imagine you wish to have several interviews with a government agency before you are allowed to vote....as well as a background check to make sure you are of age, and have no limits on your ability to vote..right?

 

[BULLDOG]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

Yes they had an absolute right. None of them were guilty of any crime, all of them could or did pass background checks.
There should be no restrictions whatsoever. The 2A is very clear about this.

Do you have any evidence they all passed a comprehensive background check? Even if true, and considering the source (Rabbi), nothing should be taken as true without confirmation.

Adam Lanza was still in school..
And how do you know people are crazy before they act crazy? Do people want to start forcing sane tests on us too?

Everybody knew Adam Lanza was crazy.

Link?

Lanza's family and school were well aware of his problems long before the shooting. I'm not sure the extent of his problems were known, but there was no doubt that they existed.
http://www.newsweek.com/report-details-adam-lanzas-life-sandy-hook-shootings-286867

And he had never shown any violent behavior.........would you put Sheldon Cooper in a mental hospital?

I didn't say anything about whether he should be in a hospital. I said he shouldn't have had access to guns.

 

[IsaacNewton]

There is only a tiny number of firearms that are legal for the public to own.

They are, like everything else, subject to regulation.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Lets say someone is unstable.

How does that fact mean they will never have the need of a weapon?

Either to feed or protect themselves or others?

Just because they feel they need it doesnt mean they should have it. Who is going to make the decision for them that they have an actual "need"? Remember they are crazy.

Someone that is actually crazy is probably locked up.

I was clear when I said unstable.

If an unstable woman is getting raped, I think she can decide to kill her rapist.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

yes

no


We get it, leftist hate freedom and HATE the Constitution.


Please stop voting for people that want to take our freedoms 'for our own good'.

And whom exactly should citizens vote for – certainly not conservatives.

Conservatives want to take a women’s right to privacy, take away the right of gay Americans to due process and equal protection of the law, and violate the First Amendment rights of Muslim Americans.

That’s conservative hatred of freedom and the Constitution, that’s what happens when citizens vote for conservatives who want to take our freedoms 'for our own good.’

As for ‘the left,’ the firearm regulatory measures the advocate for are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

What right to privacy?

You took that away already

What due process?

since when do muslims not have free speech.

such lies.


so since the scotus said anti-guns laws are Constitutional, corporations are people and you need to stfu about it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Lets say someone is unstable.

How does that fact mean they will never have the need of a weapon?

Either to feed or protect themselves or others?

define unstable....the number of mentally ill people in this country is large, the number who are dangerous are few......

people that can function w/o the direct aide of others. People that can medicate themselves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

• Trump Supports The 2A more Strongly than Any Previous Republican Nominee
  Ammoland ^ | 9 June, 2016 | Dean Weingarten
  Many people have said or written that while Donald Trump supports the Second Amendment, talk is cheap, and we do not have actions to back up the talk.There is some truth in that. Donald Trump does not have a legislative record to show actions to back up his words. But words have meanings. If a nominee is unwilling to give us words in support of the Second Amendment, why should we believe that he will go to bat for us in the legislature, in the executive branch, or in the courts? If the nominee is too concerned with being...

Trump is a demagogue and a charlatan, nothing he says matters; watch his feet, not his lips (it is not what he says, but what he has done and will do). The risk of a Trump presidency far outweighs any potential rewards.

 

[martybegan]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

I believe that your goal of trying to prevent them from having firearms should not include laws that make it harder for me to get one. If someone is nuts, someone should say something and try to get them help and adjudicated as mentally unfit.

The most the State can do is make sure only eligible people can possess firearms. Un-eligible people being felons, people who have been adjudicated for mental defect, and those who have received due process, such as people awaiting trial, and those under a court restraining order that includes surrender of firearms.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

They don't learn this in government school.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

I believe that your goal of trying to prevent them from having firearms should not include laws that make it harder for me to get one. If someone is nuts, someone should say something and try to get them help and adjudicated as mentally unfit.

The most the State can do is make sure only eligible people can possess firearms. Un-eligible people being felons, people who have been adjudicated for mental defect, and those who have received due process, such as people awaiting trial, and those under a court restraining order that includes surrender of firearms.

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

Gun control does not mean to me, or most others, to deprive you of your desire and ability to own or possess a firearm; however, there are people who should never ever have a gun in their possession. We should all agree on that simple proposition, and yet some do not - they are the gun nuts (M14 & 2aguy, for example).

Rational people support keeping guns in the hands of sober, sane, honest and law abiding men and women, and responsible people discuss and support means to reduce gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not.

How to determine who should and who should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a gun is the issue. Irrational and irresponsible people (such as M14 & 2aguy, though they are not alone) reject the premise and believe any restrictions on guns or people to possess them is unlawful (and infringes on an absolute right)

[of late some have modified this position, after the fact proof is established that an individual is one who should be deprived of his or her 2nd A. Right (of course this is too late to protect the victim and assuage his or her family)].

 

[eflatminor]

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

To what end? You think thugs and crazies are going to follow your rules? You're not that thick, are you?

Clearly, criminals aren't going to obey the law, so why in the world would you wish to impede good law abiding citizens from possessing the means to defend themselves? Do you come from a long line of criminals, hoping to ensure you keep a tactical advantage over your victims? I can imagine no other plausible explanation.

So, no, I do not think licensing should be required to own a firearm.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

They don't learn this in government school.

Huh?:

• George Mason is dead
• The Organized Militia is the National Guard and the Naval and Coast Guard Reserve.
• the Militia today is not middle aged fat guys untrained and not under the leadership of Officers Appointed by the State.
• We no longer live in the 18th Century
• LIes by Omission are damn lies
• PC lies by Omission (See: Art I, sec 8, and clause 15 and 16 (omitted in the post above by PC)

 

[my2¢]

I believe each state should constitute what they term as a militia and the requirements for membership and training.

 

[eflatminor]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

To what end? You think thugs and crazies are going to follow your rules? You're not that thick, are you?

Clearly, criminals aren't going to obey the law, so why in the world would you wish to impede good law abiding citizens from possessing the means to defend themselves? Do you come from a long line of criminals, hoping to ensure you keep a tactical advantage over your victims? I can imagine no other plausible explanation.

So, no, I do not think licensing should be required to own a firearm.

Of course you don't think, You simply echo what has been posted ad nauseam, the tautology that criminals don't obey laws.

• Speed limits don't stop speeders (fines and license suspension, impounds and probation revocations with a jail sentence will eventually slow them down)
• Petty thieves usually get a slap on the wrist, and serve less than one day in jail. A second Petty Theft results in a felony conviction, and that is a punch in the gut (CA law, petty with a prior)
• Laws do not prevent crime, laws punish those who commit crime.
• Gun Licensing will reduce the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who (most of us agree) should never own or possess a gun [sell a gun to an unlicensed person, lose your license and your right to own, possess or ever again have a gun in your custody and control).

 

[gipper]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

They don't learn this in government school.

Huh?:

• George Mason is dead
• The Organized Militia is the National Guard and the Naval and Coast Guard Reserve.
• the Militia today is not middle aged fat guys untrained and not under the leadership of Officers Appointed by the State.
• We no longer live in the 18th Century
• LIes by Omission are damn lies
• PC lies by Omission (See: Art I, sec 8, and clause 15 and 16 (omitted in the post above by PC)

Hence...the Constitution is meaningless in the small minds of some. The consequence of this is rule by elite, but then consequences mean nothing to the left.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

They don't learn this in government school.

Huh?:

• George Mason is dead
• The Organized Militia is the National Guard and the Naval and Coast Guard Reserve.
• the Militia today is not middle aged fat guys untrained and not under the leadership of Officers Appointed by the State.
• We no longer live in the 18th Century
• LIes by Omission are damn lies
• PC lies by Omission (See: Art I, sec 8, and clause 15 and 16 (omitted in the post above by PC)

Hence...the Constitution is meaningless in the small minds of some. The consequence of this is rule by elite, but then consequences mean nothing to the left.

Thanks once again for sharing you opinion, it is very enlightening.