Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.
David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com
Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.
But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...
How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?
Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.
Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?
Shocking...
But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.
Now that's insane.
how come none of you acknowledge heller vs. dc? your ass friend scalia has made it clear that no one is coming for your guns. so how come you guys hate reality so much?
Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.
David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com
An Op-Ed, really Rabbi? Even you're not dumb enough to believe and Op-Ed is anything more than an opinion. Whatever is decided by the USSC, if they decide in the future on some form of gun control/regulation will be a binding Op-Ed (or several). We know now how Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote - the open question is how will Kennedy and the Chief Justice vote?
Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.
David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com
An Op-Ed, really Rabbi? Even you're not dumb enough to believe and Op-Ed is anything more than an opinion. Whatever is decided by the USSC, if they decide in the future on some form of gun control/regulation, it will be a binding Op-Ed. And likely several Op-Ed's supporting or differing in the majority opinion.
How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?
Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.
Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?
Shocking...
But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.
Now that's insane.
Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.
Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.
and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?
You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.
and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?
You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.
Until driving becomes a Right and not merely the privilege that it IS, I'd hardly say it's a very good comparison.
How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?
Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.
Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?
Shocking...
But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.
Now that's insane.
Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.
Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.
Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?
Shocking...
But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.
Now that's insane.
Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.
Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.
Crazy.
How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.
Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.
Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.
Crazy.
How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.
So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?
Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.
Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.
Crazy.
How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.
So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?
Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.
Crazy.
How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.
So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?
pretty much, especially on a highway. 65mph speed limit they aren't touching you under 80. lots of time under 85 if there is little traffic. out town has a posted 30 mph speed limit. 45-50 is the speed traffic flows at.
facts are such nasty little devils
Actually not a single one has.
You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.
No, the big issue is requiring the private individual to perform a background check. Dealers are already required to perform background checks.
It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.
I'm sorry - YOU claimed that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster."You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.
No, the big issue is requiring the private individual to perform a background check. Dealers are already required to perform background checks.
It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.
Yes. It will be very interesting. Now please cite a single court decision which says that is unconstitutional.
If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.
And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.
Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.
Perhaps you can direct me to where the NRA has ever taken any approach to either one...
If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.
And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.
Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.
Lets look at the standard comparison used when looking at the 1st and the 2nd amendment. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.
Now, that is not covered under freedom of speech, and like shooting someone, it is very dangerous. However lets look at how one would prevent somone from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, considering first that both shooting someone without cause (self defense) and yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre without cause (no fire) are both illegal.
Applying current gun control.
In order to enter a theatre run by a federally liscenced theatre owner, you have to wait outside while the usher checked your background for any felonies. In some states you would need to be registered prior to entering the theatre. In other states if the show was outside in public, you would need a Outside speaker permit (OSP). Some states only issue these to police officers and retired police officers. One state doesnt require it at all.
People could run thier own theatre, but if they let in someone who is not allowed to watch the movies, they could be found liable. Furthermore, fast talking people (auctioneers) need to have a special permit to enter the theatre, and can only do so with the permission of the local theatre security guard. They also have to pay a tax for being able to talk so fast. This all depends on the state the theatre is in.
Now in some states as well, to prevent people from talking, gags have to be worn, with the gag only removed in case of emergency.
Currently there are movements to restrict even more fast talkers from entering the theatre. People allowed would only be those known to speak less than one word per 5 seconds, and are only allowed 10 words (or 7) at a time, before having to breathe in again"
People with funny accents would also be banned from the theatre.
[
It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.
HAHAHA. So there's no federal law restricting me selling cocaine to another person? Can you think at all? Don't answer that.
The product you are selling is illegal, that is why your sale would be illegal.
