Democrat platform committee member: no one should have guns...

[Yarddog]

yes..the anti gunners tell us...no one wants to take your guns....and they are one of a few things...naive, foolish, stupid, or lying........the democrat leaders want to ban guns...right now they don't think they can do it without loosing power.....so they chip and chip away at the right.....they want gun registration like no one's business...that will allow them to ban and confiscate guns in the future...yes..that is exactly what they want to do.....

They can't go straight to that...but they know they can use universal background checks to get there...that is why they are pushing so hard for universal background checks even though they know they don't stop criminals or mass shooters...

In fact...that is exactly why they want them.....pass universal checks...and when gun crime continues...then comes the call for registration...they will use the argument that of course universal checks don't work...we need registration to make them work.....

DNC Platform Committee Member: Nobody Should Own a Gun

DNC Platform Committee member Bonnie Schaefer says she does not believe “anyone should have a gun.”
She said this in a video aired by CSPAN and released on June 8.

Schaefer said the focus has to go beyond “keeping the guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and criminals.” She added, “I really don’t personally think anyone should have a gun. That’s just my own philosophy.”

I think even though you quoted it, you must have missed the part that said. “I really don’t personally think anyone should have a gun. That’s just my own philosophy.”

I agree with her. If no one had a gun no one would get shot.

sure thats a no brainer, but since its impossible to stop illegal trafficking through our borders, the illegal gun market would thrive should guns become outlawed. Then you can pretty much guarantee mainly gangs will be armed and regular citizens not. One can say progressives don't want to disarm us , but they would love to make it too expensive to own a fire arm, and difficult to get ammunition. The lady's Philosophy should really end with herself. SHE should not have a gun, but its her philosophy to think for everyone else.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

War may eventually be the only answer to ensuring the right to bear arms.

 

[MaryL]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

 

[MaryL]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

Check out the Puckle gun patented in 1718 it was the first firearm called a machine gun. The framers of the Constitution knew there would be advances.

 

[2aguy]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

What cycle are we in? You say that as if you know what it is.

Do you understand...at all...that as mor Americans not only own guns but carry them...our gun mirdered rate went down?

Do, you, understand, that fact?


If you do....your post was uninformed or dishonest...which is it?

 

[2aguy]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

What fully automatic weapons are you talking about? Please name on mass public shooting that used a fully automatic weapon.

And how do you define abusing that amendment...?

There are 8 million rifles with detachable magazines in this country.....how many are used in crime each year?

How many are used to commit murder each year?

Do you intellectually understand that murder by all categories of rifle...hunting, AR-15s, mini14s and on and on......were less than murders with knives?

Do you understand that?

Murder with empty hands was more than all rifles...do you understand that?

Murder with blunt objects was more than with rifles...do you understand that?

Where is this rampant abuse of the 2nd Amendmemt?

There are at least 3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands.......1 or 2 a year are used in any form of crime.....

Do you realize that......?

Since that is the truth.....how does your post make any sense at all?

 

[2aguy]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

There is no way they could have foreseen the Internet...so only the government should have Internet access, right?

 

[Asclepias]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

There is no way they could have foreseen the Internet...so only the government should have Internet access, right?

Technically the government invented the internet so yes. Look up DARPA

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I agree with her. If no one had a gun no one would get shot.

Except you when the homies in the next neighborhood decide you've been vertical too long. and decide to shoot you bwith the gun you think they won't have.

And here we thought you were smart. Guess not.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree with her. If no one had a gun no one would get shot.

Except you when the homies in the next neighborhood decide you've been vertical too long. and decide to shoot you bwith the gun you think they won't have.

And here we thought you were smart. Guess not.

That doesnt make any sense. Start correcting that after you are less emotional and try again.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

No. They could not forsee the world as we have it today. That said, I don't agree that would have resulted in a different writing of the amendment. The reason for the second amendment is just as valid today as it was in their time.

 

[2aguy]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

No. They could not forsee the world as we have it today. That said, I don't agree that would have resulted in a different writing of the amendment. The reason for the second amendment is just as valid today as it was in their time.

this was addressed in he Heller Decision....


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

We agree on one thing , it wont happen, Because of this enabling vicious cycle we are in, not because of the reasons you post. You might sleep better reading this, but it only makes me a little more cynical.

You are aware that with 3d laser printer technologies, people can simply create guns and manufacture them for themselves. Aren't you?

Do you think our forefathers that framed the second amendment written in 1791 , did they foresee terrorism, mentally people or fully automatic weapons abusing that amendment? How could they? Technology has surpassed the second amendment, and it's time we rectified that.

And of course the Supreme Court has addressed this...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[martybegan]

If the Second Amendment is an important right to you, you likely would be a Republican.
If you believe in losing those rights, you are much more likely to be a Dim.

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

If the Second Amendment is an important right to you, you likely would be a Republican.
If you believe in losing those rights, you are much more likely to be a Dim.

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

 

[2aguy]

I agree with her. If no one had a gun no one would get shot.

Except you when the homies in the next neighborhood decide you've been vertical too long. and decide to shoot you bwith the gun you think they won't have.

And here we thought you were smart. Guess not.

That doesnt make any sense. Start correcting that after you are less emotional and try again.

You are wrong on all levels....

As to the individual Right...

from Heller v. District of Columbia...

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

-----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

 

[GaryDog]

By "arms" they meant muskets.

So there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, radio, or network news?

Speech is regulated. Time, place and manner restrictions everywhere.

And nice work ignoring the rest of my post.

I haven't argued that arms can't be reasonably regulated just as speech is reasonably regulated, but the government cannot legally oppress speech just as they cannot legally oppress gun ownership.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing to address. If the detractors of Mason were correct they'd have gotten their way 200 years ago. The reality is, those like yourself who wish to oppress the rights of others have been losing this issue. Overall, states and the courts have been lessening restrictions on guns in recent years, not strengthening them.

WTF are you talking about with "gotten their way"? The 2nd Amendment, for 220 years, was NEVER interpreted as a constitutional right to self-defense using firearms until 2008. Do you know the first thing about constitutional law? Or are you one of these facebook lawyers? The Roberts Court departed from all legal precedent on the 2nd amendment, including most readily accepted meanings regarding "well regulated militia" in accompanying constitutional convention writings. Mason absolutely DID NOT get his way.

You claim I wish to "oppress" the rights of others? I don't think you know what the fuck that word means. I'm for 100% background checks, registration, licensing, better training, etc. Just like cars (which, you know, everyone actually needs, unlike guns, which purely exist to replace your flaccid erection). That's not oppression, that's pure common sense.

And you are correct, gun laws have been loosened, but not because of some freedom-fighting ethic among the people; it's because of the gun manufacturers' having the most powerful special interest lobby in Congress. They want the moolah, not the rights for the "whole people". You're just one of their many obedient shills.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

lol @ all the facebook constitutional scholars here.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...(Spurious Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

 

[GaryDog]

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Jesus. I'd be more inclined to believe you know what you're talking about if you could spell "privilege".

 

[hunarcy]

Hey Asseclipias, what was the black man's name that the Chinese stole the first guns (fire lances) from ?

Who brought guns, disease and genocide to america, wiped out a people already here and eslaved another group of people for centuries?

The Spanish.