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.
we arent talking about laws,,,that doesnt mean they make laws or rightsWrong.
The only thing clear is that the Supreme Court alone determines when a right has been infringed.
This can get complicated.
Since legislators are not supposed to just make up laws arbitrarily either, they have to be based on some inherent existing right of individuals that the legislators can justify defending to make the legislation needed and valid.
So then the SCOTUS does in effect does make law.
What they determine is if the previously existing basis for law, does in fact determine what is legal or not, and in effect make law.
The only difference is that they are limited only to what has been brought before the bench, and can't go off on other tangents on their own.
you and those that think like you are obviously the problem with this country,,,
nothing you said is backed up in the constitution
Yes it is.
The whole point of the preamble, is to point out that laws must never be arbitrary, but instead based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals.
Although the Declaration of Independence is more clear.
There are only 3 possible source of authority:
1 is inherent individual rights.
2 is might makes right of a dictatorship.
3 is divine right of a theocracy.
I vote for door number 1.
I thought we were talking about the 2nd and your position was the states can regulate and mine was no government can regulate???we arent talking about laws,,,that doesnt mean they make laws or rights
This can get complicated.
Since legislators are not supposed to just make up laws arbitrarily either, they have to be based on some inherent existing right of individuals that the legislators can justify defending to make the legislation needed and valid.
So then the SCOTUS does in effect does make law.
What they determine is if the previously existing basis for law, does in fact determine what is legal or not, and in effect make law.
The only difference is that they are limited only to what has been brought before the bench, and can't go off on other tangents on their own.
you and those that think like you are obviously the problem with this country,,,
nothing you said is backed up in the constitution
Yes it is.
The whole point of the preamble, is to point out that laws must never be arbitrary, but instead based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals.
Although the Declaration of Independence is more clear.
There are only 3 possible source of authority:
1 is inherent individual rights.
2 is might makes right of a dictatorship.
3 is divine right of a theocracy.
I vote for door number 1.
Laws are supposed to be legislative attempts to defend the inherent rights of individuals.
And you can't very well defend the inherent rights of individuals without weapons either.
So it all seems related to me.
They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.
The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.
And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.
Says you, citing you.
Says you, citing you.The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.
Not everyone shits their pants at the sight of a gun, Joey.
There is a so called Veterans club here. I won't go into the negatives about it but for one item that has been talked about and more than a few veterans refuse to go there over it.
The Directors Son walks around with an open carry gun on his hip. He says it's to protect everyone in there. No, it's not. It's to make his Johnson feel bigger, nothing more. He's more than a bit of a fruitcake to begin with. To makes things even weirder, they say they are supporting US Veterans yet both the Director and the Son are Canadians. Yes, through the wiggle room of the laws, the Son gained Citizenship and then spent 2 years in the US Army. He used that to gain his various permits although Open Carry does not require any special licensing. He hasn't set one foot in a CCW class. He used the clause about a newly separated Military Person being able to apply and get a CCW just by filing. Do I need to be armed equally to protect everyone around him from Him if push comes to shove? In the event of an emergency I am quite certain he will do something stupid like draw and shoot when maybe there wasn't enough reason. 2 years of pushing a pencil in the US Army doesn't get your ready for anything other than how to administer first aid for paper cuts.
If you don't want to open or concealed carry then don't do it.
Just quit your bitching about other people legally doing it. It just makes you look like a whinny snowflake asshole.
If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.
THAT is BULLSHIT.
If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.
And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.
"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.
Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.
You want to see pure panic from the Cops? Use even one amour piercing round or one mercury tipped bullet. They are going to go ape over that and it's all hands on deck. Same goes if you get your hands on an Automatic weapon and use it in a crime. They'll stop everything and concentrate in bring in everyone involved from the person that used these things to the chain where they aquired them. Having anyone running around with the will to use such things is suicide to Cops and every citizen on the street. And I don't care if the items were stolen from your home. There is a reason that you aren't supposed to have them in the home unless you have the proper licensing and storage facility. Lots of people die in the process if you don't because criminals will break in and take your dangerous stuff if it's not properly stored.
Nonsense.
You need to actually learn anything at all about firearms.
Just about any firearm can easily be turned into a full auto machine-gun in less than an hour, and that includes any bolt action rifle.
And there are millions of people buying armor piercing steel core bullets all the time.
Any of the cheap eastern block ammunition is steel core because it is cheaper.
And no one tracks the special carbide tipped that is only green if issued to the US military.
The reality is that machine guns and armor piercing bullets are insignificant, and do not at all facilitate crime or present any additional risk to anyone.
If criminals think they want these things, they already have them, easily. And there is no way to stop them.
But only a couple of times in all of US history, has anyone committed a crime with a full auto weapon.
Besides the LA bank robbers, you have to go all the way back to prohibition to find examples.
Full auto simply does not facilitate crime.
I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.
So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.
Deal?
Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.
Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.
Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.
Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?
If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...
We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
It's also gone down in areas that people don't carry gun more frequently. NYC is a good example. It went from the Murder capital of the World to the safest Metro City in the World and Guns had nothing to do with it by either criminals nor private citizens. If you make a cesspool then you get what you describe. If you clean that cesspool up using Social Programs (yes, cupcake, job creation is a social program) then the gun crime and all other crimes go down. Neighborhoods that are gainfully employed won't tolerate all this nonsense and it attracts Jobs and Businesses to it. Unfortunately, only NYC seems to have learned that lesson.
Not sure I would give NYC as a positive example.
While there certainly are ways to make a city safer without guns, that entails more jobs, opportunities, education, vocational training, better owner occupied housing opportunities, equality, etc.
I don't think NYC did anything good.
Instead I think they just make their cops more abusive, and murdered and intimidated a lot more poor people.
Like the Eric Garner who had a legal right to sell single cigarettes.
I saw the video, and it was murder, without any legal basis for arrest, much less jumping on him and deliberately causing asphyxiation.
I would rate the NYC police as some of the most criminal in the world, and have an incredibly high murder rate.
I gave you his actual paper...you doofus.....
No, you gave me some NRA propaganda where other people talk about his methodology with such stupidity as "He didn't just count nice white people".
Moron, I gave you the actual research paper that he did to change the number from 43 to 2.7, and that has nothing to do with the NRA....you have been caught again, making up dumb crap, and now you spew...."But...the NRA....but....the NRA...."
I stopped reading at the word Moron. You still don't get it. This type of argument only makes the other side sound more right to others that are sitting on the fence. Try being nice. If you are getting angry, "STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD", there is a wonderful world out there. My breakfast is soon to be had and that's more important than anything posted in here.
Good advice. It is an emotional subject. I should try to be more calm. Thanks.
Good point that being experienced with a firearm from years in the military does not mean one knows the laws, rights, and responsibilities of weapons in civilian situations.
Military experience is about the most opposite of civilian life one could imagine.
Nor does being in current law enforcement, or retired law enforcement. I have been a member at several gun clubs over my years of shooting, and have seen some police practice poor safety habits, and also have been inaccurate shooters. I have seen some very good ones too, but it doesn't guarantee you are more proficient than the average gun owner.
Actually not.unless like in this case its restricted by the constitutionas like with the 1st A,,, the 2nd protects us from the government not from the guy sitting next to usThe difference between "most" and "all" is very minimal in my opinion.
I suspect that if our Founding Fathers were sitting in a pub and drafting out the Second Amendment over lunch and there was a drunk banishing a gun they would disarm him and then go back to protecting our rights to keep and bear arms.
and as for the mentally ill, its a due process that is used to declare a person unfit for possession not the government
Due process has to start with the Legislated arm of the Government in all levels. The Courts can only rule on the existing laws in place and cannot write new laws.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear
Which does not apply to the State and Locals for the most part. The only thing they can't do is not allow you to have a handgun in your home but they can require you to have to register your gun AND have a permit to own it. Most States and Locals don't go that far but the ones that do are perfectly legal. The 2nd Amendment only restricts the Federals, not the States.
The Second Amendment was incorporated to states and local jurisdictions in 2010. See McDonald v Chicago.
If you want to prosecute certain acts or omissions that amount to the reckless use of a firearm, I have no problem with that, as long as specific acts or omissions are reasonably tailored to promote safety and not so strict as to effectively make impossible the lawful use of such firearms. In other words, I will not support a law that criminalizes storing a firearm with all ammunition is a separate location or with a clumsy trigger lock, both of which make the firearm useless in a defense situation. I would support criminalizing things like drunken brandishing of a firearm in public, which I believe is already a crime in every state.You also can't settle petty arguments by shooting the other person either. Actually, it happens from time to time. You can't be drunk while possessing a....... Of course you can. Laws aren't for the criminal, it's for the criminally stupid.
It is AT LEAST a clear restriction on the Federal Government. I would argue that the right is reserved to the people individually, not a power reserved to the as a collective. So, in that context, no government should infringe on the right of the people. But, for now, NO ONE can argue that the 2A is anything other than AT LEAST a restriction on Federal authority. Which means, at a minimum, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional and have been since their enactment.its a restriction on all government,,,or it would say only feds,,,,
specifics matter,,,you just cant go makin shit up for the sake of makin shit up
Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.
You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.
Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.
But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.
It isn't up to interpretation except for people who want to limit it...then they always interpret it to exclude more and more guns and equipment...."Shall not be infringed" is easy to read, it is short and to the point...... you want to limit it....so it is "ambiguous" .....we get it....so...No.
That is the last 4 words. Tell me how all the rest is still applicable?
The last 4 words bans all federal jurisdiction over guns.
But if you want to understand how the beginning about the well regulated militia still applies, that is easy.
There was more need for a militia in the founders days because there were no police or standing army close by, but the need for a militia never can go away, first of all because the police can't respond fast enough to actually protect anyone, but also because as government always become corrupt, eventually another rebellion will be as necessary as the one in 1776, with the police and military being the bad guys, once again.
The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, so that they will be efficient at arms when the time comes for that to be necessary. And that will never go away. It could be a tsumani, nuclear war, plague, insurrection, invasion, etc. Does not matter. Anyone who thinks society will continue on forever as is, is just foolish. Anyone who is not prepared and passes that down to their children, is irresponsible.
Tell the readers what was the meaning of arms? And are the arms in play in the 18th century the same as the arms which exist in the 21st?
Taking at face value your comment, you or me and everyone else has the absolute right to own, posses and have in our custody and control Surface to Air Missiles, land mines, anti tank weapons, even anti-personal grenades.
Do you support such weapons available to the general public?
If you want to prosecute certain acts or omissions that amount to the reckless use of a firearm, I have no problem with that, as long as specific acts or omissions are reasonably tailored to promote safety and not so strict as to effectively make impossible the lawful use of such firearms. In other words, I will not support a law that criminalizes storing a firearm with all ammunition is a separate location or with a clumsy trigger lock, both of which make the firearm useless in a defense situation. I would support criminalizing things like drunken brandishing of a firearm in public, which I believe is already a crime in every state.You also can't settle petty arguments by shooting the other person either. Actually, it happens from time to time. You can't be drunk while possessing a....... Of course you can. Laws aren't for the criminal, it's for the criminally stupid.
I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.
So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.
Deal?
Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.
Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.
Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.
Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?
If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...
We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Your obsession with guns is noted.
What else is there but weapons?
If you think your vote is going to protect you, from a criminal or tyranny, I think you are mistaken.
I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.
Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.
Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.
Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.
Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?
If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...
We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Your obsession with guns is noted.
What else is there but weapons?
If you think your vote is going to protect you, from a criminal or tyranny, I think you are mistaken.
I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.
Unarmed civilians are often raped, robbed and murdered which would not happen if they were armed.....
I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.Careful now, you are expressing views like my own. If it ever gets out, you are going to have to turn in your secrit gunnutter decoder ring.
Your obsession with guns is noted.
What else is there but weapons?
If you think your vote is going to protect you, from a criminal or tyranny, I think you are mistaken.
I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.
And that is a good thing, right?
For example, if someone if breaking into your car, if you are not armed, likely you would be afraid to go out and stop them.
But if armed, you an have the confidence to scare them away and protect your rights.
And that is better for police as well, as they then don't have to arrive at a scene unknown to them, and take all those risks.
thats nice but has nothing to do with the original intent of the 2nd
I think it does, especially since there were no police back then, and more threats, like native attacks, pirates, border gangs, etc.
Clearly all individuals were part of the militia, and the militia was not for the government's use as much as for individuals.
So, what do we do about that?Tell the readers what was the meaning of arms? And are the arms in play in the 18th century the same as the arms which exist in the 21st?
Taking at face value your comment, you or me and everyone else has the absolute right to own, posses and have in our custody and control Surface to Air Missiles, land mines, anti tank weapons, even anti-personal grenades.
Do you support such weapons available to the general public?
there is no section 15-16 of article one,,,it stops at tenWhat else is there but weapons?
If you think your vote is going to protect you, from a criminal or tyranny, I think you are mistaken.
I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.
And that is a good thing, right?
For example, if someone if breaking into your car, if you are not armed, likely you would be afraid to go out and stop them.
But if armed, you an have the confidence to scare them away and protect your rights.
And that is better for police as well, as they then don't have to arrive at a scene unknown to them, and take all those risks.
thats nice but has nothing to do with the original intent of the 2nd
I think it does, especially since there were no police back then, and more threats, like native attacks, pirates, border gangs, etc.
Clearly all individuals were part of the militia, and the militia was not for the government's use as much as for individuals.
Have you not read or understood Art I, Clause 8, sec's 15 &16 of COTUS? The Organized Militia is the National Guard, the Naval Reserves and probably the Coast Guard; the unorganized militia is a fantasy.
That is totally fucking wrong and would have been impossible because the "militia" act did not exist until more than 100 years after Art 1, 8 was ratified.Have you not read or understood Art I, Clause 8, sec's 15 &16 of COTUS? The Organized Militia is the National Guard, the Naval Reserves and probably the Coast Guard; the unorganized militia is a fantasy.
I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.Careful now, you are expressing views like my own. If it ever gets out, you are going to have to turn in your secrit gunnutter decoder ring.
Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.
My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.
Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies
Guns are not toys.
