For left-wingers who want to end a right to bear arms...

[rightwinger]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

People have never had the right to use their firearms wherever and whenever they wanted to and the Constitution does not even mention the use of firearms only that the people have the right to keep and bear arms

Therefore while I can own any firearm and carry that firearm I am not at liberty to use that firearm. In fact there are very few instances where it is legal to use a firearm and those instances are clearly spelled out

Good point

The right to bear arms does not permit you to walk around carrying your guns and firing at will.

Carrying yes

Firing no

Keep and bear



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Oh.....I feel better now

You are constitutionally allowed to keep arms but not fire them

 

[rightwinger]

And no one seeks to amend the Constitution to ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.

This is why the thread premise is a lie.

Anyone who is honest will admit that the only way for any gun control law to be legitimate and Constitutional, would be to do exactly that. As long as the Second Amendment stands, every single gun control, without exception, is unconstitutional and illegitimate, and every corrupt public official who has any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is no better than a common criminal, and deserved to be treated as such.

And there is where the true lie is found. By wise design, amending the Constitution is no trivial task. But if the public support were really there that is often claimed, for various policies that violate the Second Amendment, then there would certainly be a credible effort underway—if not already successfully completed—to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

There is no such effort underway, because nobody in a position to initiate such an effort believes that it would have any plausible chance of succeeding. Which means that they know that the claims of overwhelming support for policies that are contrary to the Second Amendment are all lies.

Sadly, not at all true

The second amendment has never allowed unfettered access to weapons

 

[Blues Man]

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

People have never had the right to use their firearms wherever and whenever they wanted to and the Constitution does not even mention the use of firearms only that the people have the right to keep and bear arms

Therefore while I can own any firearm and carry that firearm I am not at liberty to use that firearm. In fact there are very few instances where it is legal to use a firearm and those instances are clearly spelled out

Good point

The right to bear arms does not permit you to walk around carrying your guns and firing at will.

Carrying yes

Firing no

Keep and bear



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Oh.....I feel better now

You are constitutionally allowed to keep arms but not fire them

As I have repeatedly said there are very specific very well defined instances where it is legal to discharge a firearm

We first need to enforce the laws we have before we pass any more

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns as long as he obeys the laws regarding their use.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[BlindBoo]

As long as the Second Amendment stands, every single gun control, without exception, is unconstitutional and illegitimate, and every corrupt public official who has any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is no better than a common criminal, and deserved to be treated as such.

Beyond reason. They're not criminals for wanting to stop gun violence.

A well regulated Militia, is no longer necessary to the security of a free State. Every male citizen between 18- 45 were required to join the militia and arm themselves accordingly. Things changed. I think we can compromise. What works in the big Cities isn't what works in the open Country.

 

[Questioner]

And no one seeks to amend the Constitution to ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.

This is why the thread premise is a lie.

Anyone who is honest will admit that the only way for any gun control law to be legitimate and Constitutional, would be to do exactly that. As long as the Second Amendment stands, every single gun control, without exception, is unconstitutional and illegitimate, and every corrupt public official who has any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is no better than a common criminal, and deserved to be treated as such.

And there is where the true lie is found. By wise design, amending the Constitution is no trivial task. But if the public support were really there that is often claimed, for various policies that violate the Second Amendment, then there would certainly be a credible effort underway—if not already successfully completed—to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

There is no such effort underway, because nobody in a position to initiate such an effort believes that it would have any plausible chance of succeeding. Which means that they know that the claims of overwhelming support for policies that are contrary to the Second Amendment are all lies.

Sadly, not at all true

The second amendment has never allowed unfettered access to weapons

I'll have to read up on the history of the courts' interpretation of it someday.

In practice though, I'm not bored enough to care at this point, and will probably end up reading actual legal cases in theory and practice, rather than people idly postulating wishful thinking or ideas on the internet, which have a snowball's chance in hell of ever actually happening, or being the case in reality.

I believe those who do want to "ban guns" probably have a likelier and more deserving case to be made for repealing the 1st Amendment, and using it to shut down left wing media and social media. (Something which may be easier for the political right to do in countries where they don't have to bother with trivalities and Constitutionality like "frozen peaches" in the sense that Americans do).

If the political right collectively markets itself and capitalizes on social media, then this may very well take place within a generation, and the so-called political "left" in America, Britain, and Western and Eastern Europe may be dead as we know it, reduce to nothing but a fond, nostalgic childish memory of a few decrepit, aging hippies and anarchists, as well as a mistake from society and culture to learn from, preserved on social media for posterity for generations to come... ah... I can't wait for the day, and the humorous and petulant reactions of what's "left" of the dying radical "left"...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As long as the Second Amendment stands, every single gun control, without exception, is unconstitutional and illegitimate, and every corrupt public official who has any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is no better than a common criminal, and deserved to be treated as such.

Beyond reason. They're not criminals for wanting to stop gun violence.

They are criminals for knowingly, willfully violating the Constitution, which is the highest law in this nation; and for conspiring to unjustifiably deprive Americans of our explicitly-affirmed Constitutional rights.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

View attachment 294645

So I borrowed a picture of this young woman from Mr. Osiris, who is apparently well-trained with a gun.

I'm curious, in practice, let's say a white, male left-winger, in practice wanted to put an end to our right to bear arms, such as this young woman's.

Pray tell, how you would actually do this in practice? What specifically, would it entail.

Would you even be able to tell her with a straight-face that she doesn't have a right to own a gun, and risk getting laughed at by a little girl? Or, would you even be able to get past pissing yourself over the thought of actually talking to a girl (consensually) face-to-face, who isn't your mother, a woman in ".jpg" format.

Hypothetically (I don't THIS young woman would), but let's say a different hypothetical woman didn't take kindly to your assertion that she doesn't have a right to bear arms?

What ever would you do, would you attempt to force yourself on her, take her gun away by force, and risk getting shot in the groin, getting your ass proverbially wubbed by a 120 young woman? Would you even have the courage to approach without getting tingly, or would you run home and cry for mommy's attention, or hang your head, and go beat off to some softcore pornography?

Please, oh please tell me what you'd actually do in practice, or be able to do at all, assuming the thought of a well-armed woman doesn't intimidate you a little, make you feel a tad in secure in your imagined, and mostly fictitious, masculinity, gentlemanliness, or whatever your old issues of Esquire all your to imagine yourself as?.

Mhmm

Getting 3/4 of the guns in this country out of the hands of untrained and unvetted folks is going to make us greatly safer. You can cast aspersions on our sexual prowess all you want, but that is the truth.

Why would legitimate gun owners object to gun safety training and preventing the mentally ill, domestic violence perpetrators, severe depression or anger issues from having guns?

This statement demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the current requirements for the purchase of a gun. I'll lay some of this out and then explain why a broad statement like that, if made into official policy with the same degree of ambiguity, would open the door to arbitrary and capricious enforcement.

First, there are ten categories of persons who are not eligible to purchase or possess a firearm under existing federal law (18 USC § 922(g)(1)-(9), (n)). Note that most of the categories you mentioned are already included under existing federal law (those categories are in bold):

1. Convicted of a felony (or equivalent)
2. Fugitive from justice
3. Unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance
4. Adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed to treatment
5. Illegal alien
6. Dishonorable discharge from the US Armed Forces
7. Renounced United States citizenship
8. Active protection order (restraining order, injunction for protection, etc.)
9. Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
10. Under indictment or information for a felony

Some states have additional statutory eligibility restrictions. The process required to purchase a gun from a federally licensed dealer (FFL) involves the following steps:

1. Purchaser (transferee) must fill out an ATF Form 4473 (copy here) and certifying the same by penalty of felony under federal law.

2. Purchaser must provide a valid government issued photo ID

3. The dealer must submit the purchaser's personally identifying information for a background check via the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) or the state's background check system, depending on the state (in Florida, background checks are done through the FDLE's Firearm Purchase Program (FPP) instead of the NICS).​

4. The dealer must wait for the decision on the background check (approve or non-approve) before transferring the firearm.​

The background check system (whether via NICS or state equivalent) is required under the Brady Bill, 18 USC § 922(t), and cross references the purchaser's information against state and federal databases to determine whether the purchaser falls within any of the above categories.

The only categories you listed that are not already included under the existing federal law are people with "severe depression" and people with "anger issues." The problem with those categories, as stated, is that the words "severe" and "anger" are entirely subjective, and cannot form the basis for an objective standard that can be uniformly enforced.

As to the depression category, the existing law provides an objective standard by defining that severity as persons who have been adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed. Without such an objective standard, who would get to determine whether someone is severely depressed, as opposed to moderately depressed, or seasonably depressed, or just really sad? Also, remember psychotherapists are required by law to inform law enforcement of any information disclosed by their patient suggesting that the patient intends to harm another person or him/herself.

As for anger, who gets to decide the degree of anger that would trigger such a standard, depriving a person of his/her Constitutional rights? It doesn't take a lot of creativity to imagine a litany of scenarios in which that standard could be applied arbitrarily, by whomever is enforcing it. Indeed, who hasn't been angry at some point in their life? Especially if they're being examined closely by someone who wishes to declare them "angry" in order to terminate their right to possess firearms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Getting 3/4 of the guns in this country out of the hands of untrained and unvetted folks is going to make us greatly safer. You can cast aspersions on our sexual prowess all you want, but that is the truth.

Lot's of things would make us "greatly safer" but it doesn't mean they are right or proper.

We could all be safer if we were all required to live in solitary confinement in maximum security prisons, but look what we give up to get that safer result.

Sacrificing liberty for the false hope of security never works. Nobody is ever safer, and liberty goes in the shitter.


.

 

[pknopp]

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is the highest law. Your position places it below the opinions of judges and justices; which is certainly wrong, especially when those opinions directly contradict the clear, explicit words actually written in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the highest law. No court, and no legislature, has the authority to allow any infringement of this right.

Further amendments note where a court can infringe on this right. It must be for cause and with due process though.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

Yeah, FUCK Dred Scott!!!



.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Getting 3/4 of the guns in this country out of the hands of untrained and unvetted folks is going to make us greatly safer. …

Lot's of things would make us "greatly safer" but it doesn't mean they are right or proper.
We could all be safer if we were all required to live in solitary confinement in maximum security prisons, but look what we give up to get that safer result.
Sacrificing liberty for the false hope of security never works. Nobody is ever safer, and liberty goes in the shitter.

Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it…

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”/

​

 

[LeftofLeft]

We don’t want to end a right to bear arms

We want to end these fucking massacres and 30,000 people killed each year by guns

What about massacres via machetes, knives and cars? Like a gun, these items can kill depending on who is operating them. People kill. Guns are means to kill AND a means to protect or deter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

View attachment 294645

So I borrowed a picture of this young woman from Mr. Osiris, who is apparently well-trained with a gun.

I'm curious, in practice, let's say a white, male left-winger, in practice wanted to put an end to our right to bear arms, such as this young woman's.

Pray tell, how you would actually do this in practice? What specifically, would it entail.

Would you even be able to tell her with a straight-face that she doesn't have a right to own a gun, and risk getting laughed at by a little girl? Or, would you even be able to get past pissing yourself over the thought of actually talking to a girl (consensually) face-to-face, who isn't your mother, a woman in ".jpg" format.

Hypothetically (I don't THIS young woman would), but let's say a different hypothetical woman didn't take kindly to your assertion that she doesn't have a right to bear arms?

What ever would you do, would you attempt to force yourself on her, take her gun away by force, and risk getting shot in the groin, getting your ass proverbially wubbed by a 120 young woman? Would you even have the courage to approach without getting tingly, or would you run home and cry for mommy's attention, or hang your head, and go beat off to some softcore pornography?

Please, oh please tell me what you'd actually do in practice, or be able to do at all, assuming the thought of a well-armed woman doesn't intimidate you a little, make you feel a tad in secure in your imagined, and mostly fictitious, masculinity, gentlemanliness, or whatever your old issues of Esquire all your to imagine yourself as?.

Mhmm

Getting 3/4 of the guns in this country out of the hands of untrained and unvetted folks is going to make us greatly safer. You can cast aspersions on our sexual prowess all you want, but that is the truth.

Why would legitimate gun owners object to gun safety training and preventing the mentally ill, domestic violence perpetrators, severe depression or anger issues from having guns?

Because that IS NOT what you proposed the new laws or regs all allow democrats to Decide things like not handling your own finances is enough to take firearms. They got to choose the doctors the regs and the rules. All designed to remove rights from people in no danger of anything.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Left can suh my dic. So says popcorn sutton

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maduro approves of disarming Americans!

"You can't safely run over civilians with an APC if they're armed" - Progressive hero Maduro

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And no one seeks to amend the Constitution to ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.

This is why the thread premise is a lie.

Anyone who is honest will admit that the only way for any gun control law to be legitimate and Constitutional, would be to do exactly that. As long as the Second Amendment stands, every single gun control, without exception, is unconstitutional and illegitimate, and every corrupt public official who has any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is no better than a common criminal, and deserved to be treated as such.

And there is where the true lie is found. By wise design, amending the Constitution is no trivial task. But if the public support were really there that is often claimed, for various policies that violate the Second Amendment, then there would certainly be a credible effort underway—if not already successfully completed—to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

There is no such effort underway, because nobody in a position to initiate such an effort believes that it would have any plausible chance of succeeding. Which means that they know that the claims of overwhelming support for policies that are contrary to the Second Amendment are all lies.

Wrong.

All laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise – including gun control laws (see, for example, US v. Morrison (2000), reaffirming the doctrine of presumed constitutionality).

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional out of deference for the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives in government.

As long as firearm regulatory measures comport with current Second Amendment case law, such measures are perfectly valid and Constitutional – where ‘amending’ the Constitution is completely unwarranted.

Again: the thread premise is a lie – no one seeks to end the right to bear arms, including the ‘left.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

People have never had the right to use their firearms wherever and whenever they wanted to and the Constitution does not even mention the use of firearms only that the people have the right to keep and bear arms

Therefore while I can own any firearm and carry that firearm I am not at liberty to use that firearm. In fact there are very few instances where it is legal to use a firearm and those instances are clearly spelled out

Good point

The right to bear arms does not permit you to walk around carrying your guns and firing at will.

Carrying yes

Firing no

Keep and bear



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Oh.....I feel better now

You are constitutionally allowed to keep arms but not fire them

As I have repeatedly said there are very specific very well defined instances where it is legal to discharge a firearm

We first need to enforce the laws we have before we pass any more

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns as long as he obeys the laws regarding their use.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

“We first need to enforce the laws we have before we pass any more.”

This sort of sophistry is both misleading and inaccurate.

The laws are being enforced; and enacting as Federal law UBCs is perfectly appropriate, warranted, and consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Some ineffective laws need to be repealed, and ineffective proposed laws – such as AWBs – should not be enacted.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wrong.

All laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise – including gun control laws (see, for example, US v. Morrison (2000), reaffirming the doctrine of presumed constitutionality).

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional out of deference for the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives in government.

As long as firearm regulatory measures comport with current Second Amendment case law, such measures are perfectly valid and Constitutional – where ‘amending’ the Constitution is completely unwarranted.

Again: the thread premise is a lie – no one seeks to end the right to bear arms, including the ‘left.’

“We first need to enforce the laws we have before we pass any more.”

This sort of sophistry is both misleading and inaccurate.

The laws are being enforced; and enacting as Federal law UBCs is perfectly appropriate, warranted, and consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Some ineffective laws need to be repealed, and ineffective proposed laws – such as AWBs – should not be enacted.

Only a brainwashed, government-worshiping cretin assumes that a law which is blatantly unconstitutional on its face, has any legitimacy at all until a judge says otherwise.

In fact, only a brainwashed, government-worshiping cretin assumes that a law which is blatantly unconstitutional on its face, has any legitimacy at all even if a corrupt judge says otherwise.

The Constitution is its own authority. And the Constitution explicitly affirms the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and forbids any infringement of it. Any corrupt government official who has any part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any law which infringes this right is acting illegally, and is to be regarded as nothing better than a common criminal. In fact, such corrupt officials are exactly one of the reasons for the Second Amendment—to assure that the power remains in the hands of the people to resist such acts of corruption on their part, by use of deadly force, if necessary.

It is, of course, no wonder that it is exactly these corrupt pieces of shit who are most afraid of this power in the hands of the people, and most desperate to see it removed. The desire to make it more difficult for the people to exercise the right to keep and bear arms always, without exception, stems from desires and intentions, which, if acted on, would give the people just cause to use these arms against those so acting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is the highest law. Your position places it below the opinions of judges and justices; which is certainly wrong, especially when those opinions directly contradict the clear, explicit words actually written in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the highest law. No court, and no legislature, has the authority to allow any infringement of this right.

Further amendments note where a court can infringe on this right. It must be for cause and with due process though.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Only government has the capacity to infringe upon (violate) citizens’ rights, not the courts.

The courts determine if government has acted contrary to the Constitution; both government and the courts are subject to Constitutional case law – the supreme law of the land.

That’s why the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law: to act as guidance to lawmakers as to what measures they may lawfully enact, and what measures they may not.

It is incumbent upon lawmakers to follow Constitutional case law.

When government errs, and acts contrary to Constitutional case law, the people are at liberty to seek relief in the courts, where un-Constitutional measures are invalidated and can be no longer enforced.

With regard to the Second Amendment, government may not ban the possession of handguns, or prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

Government may place conditions and restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms, such as background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Only government has the capacity to infringe upon (violate) citizens’ rights, not the courts.

Courts are under the Judicial Branch. Now what is it, in this country, that is composed of three co-equal branches, of which the Judicial Branch is one?

The courts determine if government has acted contrary to the Constitution; both government and the courts are subject to Constitutional case law – the supreme law of the land.

·
·
·​

It is incumbent upon lawmakers to follow Constitutional case law.

The Constitution itself is the highest law, not the distortions that corrupt judges attempt to impose on it.

Where the Constitution explicitly, unambiguously says one thing,and a court says something else, that is in conflict with it, it is the court that is wrong,. not the Constitution. Where “case law” directly contradicts the words written in the Constitution, that “case law” is wrong.

Where the Constitution explicitly affirms a right, states that this right belongs to the people, and forbids any infringement of this right, and any court or “case law” presumes to specify circumstances under which this right may be infringed, that court or “case law” is wrong.


Every government official swears an oath, not to uphold and defend the courts or “case law”, but to uphold and defend the Constitution, and to defend it against all enemies, foreign or domestic. They agree to this as a condition of being allowed to hold their positions.

Legislators who enact laws that violate the Constitution, judges who uphold such laws, and law-enforcement officers who enforce such laws, are the very enemies against whom every public servant has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.