Gun Control Compromise

[progressive hunter]

you are so wrong,,,

or unless youre saying that states can ignore the 5th and hang someone without a hearing??? or what about the 1st and jail someone for talking???

and that goes for the rest of the bill of rights

Not without throwing out due process they can't. You are really reaching on this one to try and prove you are right. Sorry, didn't work out to well for you, cupcake.

that was the point I was making,,,

the bill of rights are part of the supreme law of the land and they over ride all state and local laws

No, the Bill of Rights aren't anything. They are what the first 10 amendments are based on. And inside of those 10 amendments are states right built in along with Federal Limits. I know you want the newly minted Supreme Court of Reds to start running roughshod over the states but that's not their job and if that were to happen then they would not be following the very constitution that they are supposed to support.

TRAITOR!!!

Why thank you my own personal Terrorist cupcake. I've left you speechless. My job is done here.

NOT SPEECHLESS, just no reason to talk to a ignorant traitor

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not without throwing out due process they can't. You are really reaching on this one to try and prove you are right. Sorry, didn't work out to well for you, cupcake.

that was the point I was making,,,

the bill of rights are part of the supreme law of the land and they over ride all state and local laws

No, the Bill of Rights aren't anything. They are what the first 10 amendments are based on. And inside of those 10 amendments are states right built in along with Federal Limits. I know you want the newly minted Supreme Court of Reds to start running roughshod over the states but that's not their job and if that were to happen then they would not be following the very constitution that they are supposed to support.

TRAITOR!!!

Why thank you my own personal Terrorist cupcake. I've left you speechless. My job is done here.

NOT SPEECHLESS, just no reason to talk to a ignorant traitor

On Feb 1, 2019, I get another installment from my serving 20 years in the US Military. I guess I need to turn in my Traitor membership card since I have been an extreme dismal failure at it.

 

[progressive hunter]

that was the point I was making,,,

the bill of rights are part of the supreme law of the land and they over ride all state and local laws

No, the Bill of Rights aren't anything. They are what the first 10 amendments are based on. And inside of those 10 amendments are states right built in along with Federal Limits. I know you want the newly minted Supreme Court of Reds to start running roughshod over the states but that's not their job and if that were to happen then they would not be following the very constitution that they are supposed to support.

TRAITOR!!!

Why thank you my own personal Terrorist cupcake. I've left you speechless. My job is done here.

NOT SPEECHLESS, just no reason to talk to a ignorant traitor

On Feb 1, 2019, I get another installment from my serving 20 years in the US Military. I guess I need to turn in my Traitor membership card since I have been an extreme dismal failure at it.

the oath you took says you defend the constitution not state laws

hey john kerry also was in the military,,,so youre in good company

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

This is a lie – as ignorant as it is wrong.

There has been no ‘chipping away’ of Second Amendment rights, ‘one sided’ or otherwise.

Indeed, it was a Republican-appointed, conservative Supreme Court majority that reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and subject to regulation and restrictions by government.

And the courts have determined that current firearm regulatory measures are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, in no manner ‘chipping away’ at that right.

Everything you just posted is wrong and inaccurate.

The limits are some buildings, felons and the dangerously mentally ill...AR-15 rifles and standard magazines are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and lower courts ignoring the Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Miller rulings from the Supreme Court are breaking the law, not upholding the law.

It is a national disgrace that the courts do not apply the same strict scrutiny on our right to keep and bear arms like they apply strict scrutiny to all individual rights.

Most gun control laws are unconstitutional.

I suspect that once the old bag dies and Trump gets to appoint a clear Conservative majority Supreme Court there will be a flood of cases to corrupt the oppression that we see.

all gun laws are unconstitutional

The 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.

That’s because our founders were intelligent enough to understand that conflicts do not stem from objects, conflicts stem from people.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, the Bill of Rights aren't anything. They are what the first 10 amendments are based on. And inside of those 10 amendments are states right built in along with Federal Limits. I know you want the newly minted Supreme Court of Reds to start running roughshod over the states but that's not their job and if that were to happen then they would not be following the very constitution that they are supposed to support.

TRAITOR!!!

Why thank you my own personal Terrorist cupcake. I've left you speechless. My job is done here.

NOT SPEECHLESS, just no reason to talk to a ignorant traitor

On Feb 1, 2019, I get another installment from my serving 20 years in the US Military. I guess I need to turn in my Traitor membership card since I have been an extreme dismal failure at it.

the oath you took says you defend the constitution not state laws

hey john kerry also was in the military,,,so youre in good company

The US Constitution are what ALL State Constitutions are based on, cupcake. The US Constitution allows the State and local constitutions to make things work. If you support one, you support them all. The days of the State Constitutions being different than the US one is long gone.

But if you misinterpret one you are also going to misinterpret the other like you do, terrorist cupcake.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I suppose we could allow CC in Trump Rallies...

That’s not up to Trump, that’s up to the establishment that hosts the event.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[progressive hunter]

TRAITOR!!!

Why thank you my own personal Terrorist cupcake. I've left you speechless. My job is done here.

NOT SPEECHLESS, just no reason to talk to a ignorant traitor

On Feb 1, 2019, I get another installment from my serving 20 years in the US Military. I guess I need to turn in my Traitor membership card since I have been an extreme dismal failure at it.

the oath you took says you defend the constitution not state laws

hey john kerry also was in the military,,,so youre in good company

The US Constitution are what ALL State Constitutions are based on, cupcake. The US Constitution allows the State and local constitutions to make things work. If you support one, you support them all. The days of the State Constitutions being different than the US one is long gone.

But if you misinterpret one you are also going to misinterpret the other like you do, terrorist cupcake.

go peddle your crazy elsewhere,,,we're full up here

 

[2aguy]

all gun laws are unconstitutional

The 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.

as like with the 1st A,,, the 2nd protects us from the government not from the guy sitting next to us

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.

unless like in this case its restricted by the constitution

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.

Wrong.....the 2nd Amendment prevents this...at all levels of Government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We've already compromised our Rights with 22,000 restrictive gun laws already on the books. Also, sweeping Fed Laws like NFA 1934, and GCA 1968 are a travesty. States have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. ALL of them unconstitutional.

22,000 unenforceable gun laws. The way the NRA designed them to be. Is it unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns in vending machines?

Really? You're asserting that all the gun laws on the books are unenforceable, and therefore we need more gun laws, because THESE will somehow miraculously be enforceable where all the others aren't? THAT'S your argument?!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And another rightwing ignoramus chimes in with ridiculous lies and a slippery slope fallacy.

Simply identifying the fallacy does not refute the argument. All it does is identify a potential weakness that you must assert, which you have not. Slippery slope can be proved and is proved regarding gun control. The 1934 NFA was advertised as common-sense gun control, but like all gun control, it was not enough, and never will be enough because the goal has already been made clear. Confiscation and ban.

Background checks in no manner require ‘registration.’

Do we do background checks on voters or those who try to exercise free speech? (I can't wait for your "dangerous" argument in response)

In jurisdictions with registration no firearms have been ‘confiscated.’

This is partly true. California has effectively confiscated certain arms, but registration was not the direct cause. It was simply a ban, and non-compliant arms after a certain date are illegal to possess.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment concerns solely the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not overthrow a constitutionally elected government through force of arms.

That's not consistent with the reasoning of the founders. They all believed in the right of defense against tyranny...with arms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, the Bill of Rights aren't anything. They are what the first 10 amendments are based on. And inside of those 10 amendments are states right built in along with Federal Limits. I know you want the newly minted Supreme Court of Reds to start running roughshod over the states but that's not their job and if that were to happen then they would not be following the very constitution that they are supposed to support.

They would under the 14th Amendment.

(I am not necessarily disagreeing with you as to the initial intent of the 2A, but the 14th fucks it up)

 

[Pogo]

The Second Amendment concerns solely the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not overthrow a constitutionally elected government through force of arms.

That's not consistent with the reasoning of the founders. They all believed in the right of defense against tyranny...with arms.

When they wrote that Constitution there was no such thing as even the Minié ball yet ---- let alone F-14s, Uzis, tanks, drones, "surgical strikes" etc. You go ahead and take your stand on your front lawn with your pea-shooter and let us know how many you bring down, Rambeaux.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Second Amendment concerns solely the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not overthrow a constitutionally elected government through force of arms.

That's not consistent with the reasoning of the founders. They all believed in the right of defense against tyranny...with arms.

When they wrote that Constitution there was no such thing as even the Minié ball yet ---- let alone F-14s, Uzis, tanks, drones, "surgical strikes" etc. You go ahead and take your stand on your front lawn with your pea-shooter and let us know how many you bring down, Rambeaux.

thats the point,,,they have infringed to the point that its meaningless,,,

its past time we fix that


and if anyone wants to bring up nukes,,,how many people that currently have them in this country went through a background check and held to the same standards as you and I????

 

[Pilot1]

]
Really? You're asserting that all the gun laws on the books are unenforceable, and therefore we need more gun laws, because THESE will somehow miraculously be enforceable where all the others aren't? THAT'S your argument?!

He's right. Many are unenforceable, and all of them are ignored by criminals. However, I think his point is that the only thing that would really work would be total gun BANS, and door to door gun CONFISCATION. If that actually were tried on a large scale (larger than what happened in New Orleans, and Connecticut) it would get very ugly, very fast.

 

[Pogo]

The Second Amendment concerns solely the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not overthrow a constitutionally elected government through force of arms.

That's not consistent with the reasoning of the founders. They all believed in the right of defense against tyranny...with arms.

When they wrote that Constitution there was no such thing as even the Minié ball yet ---- let alone F-14s, Uzis, tanks, drones, "surgical strikes" etc. You go ahead and take your stand on your front lawn with your pea-shooter and let us know how many you bring down, Rambeaux.

thats the point,,,they have infringed to the point that its meaningless,,,

its past time we fix that


and if anyone wants to bring up nukes,,,how many people that currently have them in this country went through a background check and held to the same standards as you and I????

We should all own nukes. Because "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Second Amendment concerns solely the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not overthrow a constitutionally elected government through force of arms.

That's not consistent with the reasoning of the founders. They all believed in the right of defense against tyranny...with arms.

When they wrote that Constitution there was no such thing as even the Minié ball yet ---- let alone F-14s, Uzis, tanks, drones, "surgical strikes" etc. You go ahead and take your stand on your front lawn with your pea-shooter and let us know how many you bring down, Rambeaux.

thats the point,,,they have infringed to the point that its meaningless,,,

its past time we fix that


and if anyone wants to bring up nukes,,,how many people that currently have them in this country went through a background check and held to the same standards as you and I????

We should all own nukes. Because "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

it takes a lot of crazy to think thats a good idea,,,

I say the ones that have them now shouldnt

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When they wrote that Constitution there was no such thing as even the Minié ball yet ---- let alone F-14s, Uzis, tanks, drones, "surgical strikes" etc. You go ahead and take your stand on your front lawn with your pea-shooter and let us know how many you bring down, Rambeaux.

You are misinformed.

Thomas Jefferson purchased a Puckle Gun.

As for the other "arms" many private citizens owned gunships, cannons, etc.

You are telling us that the founders did not contemplate advancements in technology (as you exercise your free speech via a computer). That is simply not the case.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We should all own nukes. Because "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

We should own what our government owns.

Don't want us to own nukes? Get rid of them.