Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Leo123]

Guns are a part of traditional America life and are ingrained into our society. Guns have provided food and protection to average Americans for centuries. Leftists have successfully removed morals and values from American society along with fathers. We now have a rudderless male youth some who see guns as a way to express their anger and masculinity. This is what happens when a society stigmatizes objects instead of putting the blame where it squarely belongs.....With THEM!!

 

[Rigby5]

Did you bother to access the links?

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

Selling is ownership, and a 12 year old must be able to own anything, such as through an inheritance.
Ownership is not possession, and even possession should be legal if supervised by the parent or legal guardian.

Excellent... I’d propose we allow anybody to own whatever gun they want then... we can just regulate their rights to possess them

Again, you totally miss the point.
No one was ever suggesting all gun law be struck down, just all FEDERAL ones, because the Bill of Rights denied any federal jurisdiction over weapons. It is supposed to be a state or local jurisdiction.

This is not exactly right. The way our process works is that when there is a constitutional issue, it is settled in the courts. So, let's follow the whole sequence so that you understand the truth:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:



"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3) The earliest courts ruled that the Right is absolute and above the jurisdiction of the state government.

The ONLY reason we have so many laws on the books today is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it repealed the Bill of Rights as unalienable Rights. See this for more details:

Stolen Rights

Obviously no right can be absolute.
If you are harming others, such as pointing a gun at an innocent, then your right to life can be forfeit.
Your own quote qualifies with, "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." , so then it is not without possible restriction. The restrictions can be a list of lawful purposes, and then all other purposed could be banned by state of municipal laws.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Sorry Ray I had to stop at your 90k to 900 k OD rate... that is complete bullshit. Don’t even try to sneak that by

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

We were not discussing recinding all drug laws, but just ending the federal War on Drugs, because it is ILLEGAL!

How is it illegal? You can't tell me the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't have any guaranteed rights for drugs.

Drug laws have to be federal in order to work. It's just like states that now have legal pot. People in nearby states will just drive to a legal state to buy dope when things get dry in their own state. And if you have a state of people strung out on dope so badly that half the people don't work, it will be the federal government providing them welfare and medical care.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to list individual rights, but simply a denial of federal jurisdiction.
It then does not matter if the purpose of the article of the Bill of Rights is to give jurisdiction to the states or to protect individual rights.
And in the 9th and 10th amendments, it clearly says that there can only be federal jurisdiction if the federal authority is explicitly granted in the body of the Constitution. Since no health issue like drugs is mentioned or given to federal authority in the Constitution, then by default the federal government is barred from any drug legislation.

Drug laws can never be federal. If drugs are legal in a near by state, then likely they should be legal every where. But only states are capable of doing the research and coming up with the right conclusions. And the reality is that when drugs were legal, there was LESS problem than there is now. And the federal government has never provided any welfare or medical care for any drug user.

The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Even the anti-gun Heller decision in the United States Supreme Court acknowledges the Right separate and apart from the Second Amendment with these words:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The right has been illegally attacked. The main point is, the Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT dependent upon the Constitution. It exists with or WITHOUT the Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

It is more accurate to say that unalienable Rights can be suspended when a person is serving a sentence for an actual crime. Constitutionally speaking, the individual should be able to retain their Rights at the end of a prison sentence.

If we let people out of prison, we're saying they've been punished; that they have repaid their debt to society; that they are rehabilitated. If the government cannot say that, they have NO business sending dangerous people back into our streets.

I think I would agree with that.
You have to disarm people imprisoned so that guards are safe. But there really is no legal rational for letting a dangerous person out and then pretending he has to right of self defense.

 

[Rigby5]

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

I don’t need to be told that... I’ve explained exactly that many times on this board

But you do need to explain why you would support an Assault Weapons ban like the one California has against the benign SKS rifle, that should not be banned by anyone?

 

[Leo123]

Gun grabbers on

But you do need to explain why you would support an Assault Weapons ban like the one California has against the benign SKS rifle, that should not be banned by anyone?

SKS???? That's a SCARY name!!! Gun grabbers are insane.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

Selling is ownership, and a 12 year old must be able to own anything, such as through an inheritance.
Ownership is not possession, and even possession should be legal if supervised by the parent or legal guardian.

Excellent... I’d propose we allow anybody to own whatever gun they want then... we can just regulate their rights to possess them

Again, you totally miss the point.
No one was ever suggesting all gun law be struck down, just all FEDERAL ones, because the Bill of Rights denied any federal jurisdiction over weapons. It is supposed to be a state or local jurisdiction.

This is not exactly right. The way our process works is that when there is a constitutional issue, it is settled in the courts. So, let's follow the whole sequence so that you understand the truth:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:



"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3) The earliest courts ruled that the Right is absolute and above the jurisdiction of the state government.

The ONLY reason we have so many laws on the books today is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it repealed the Bill of Rights as unalienable Rights. See this for more details:

Stolen Rights

Obviously no right can be absolute.
If you are harming others, such as pointing a gun at an innocent, then your right to life can be forfeit.
Your own quote qualifies with, "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." , so then it is not without possible restriction. The restrictions can be a list of lawful purposes, and then all other purposed could be banned by state of municipal laws.

You just love to argue, don't you? You'd learn a Hell of a lot more if you read the thread rather than rehash shit just to run people off the thread. Here we go again. Pay attention to that word absolute. Let's see how many times I can prove you wrong in less than twenty minutes:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Heller in 2008 admits that the right was codified from an existing Right... it is an extension of your Right to Life. Today, tyrants are stealing your Rights, but we can address that for you too:

Stolen Rights

How far you want to go with this?

 

[Rigby5]

No one has ever said all gun laws are illegal.
But everyone should realize all federal gun laws are illegal.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights it to deny federal any federal jurisdiction to various areas, such as weapons.
So your argument about age is pointless.
It is supposed to be state laws that restrict age.
And it likely should vary from state to state.
Older in places like NY, and younger in places like Alaska, where there are greater natural dangers.

Several in this thread have made that argument and I’ve been debating them. You came in late. Many people take the 2nd very literally hence “shall not be infringed” makes any and all regulations illegal. I agree with you about state rights, but I we just had a kid shoot up a festival 45 minutes from my house shooting 15 and killing 3 using a gun he drove to Nevada to buy legally.

Sure maybe he could have found one on the black market if Vegas didn’t give him the easy buy. Or maybe not.

No! First of all, I did not come in late, but was in here much earlier and just started up again. Second is that everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that only restricted federal laws originally. It is true that Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, did incorporate firearms as an individual right, but that did not totally ban all state and local jurisdiction, like the 2nd amendment does to federal jurisdiction. Then the argument that no right is without restriction comes into play. I have never seen anyone claim that weapons rights can not be restricted at all, in any way.

By the way, there is state authority, but not "states rights". Only individuals have rights. But I knew what you meant.

However, I assure you that someone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by lesser penalty weapons laws. The spread of illegal drugs shows that the more you try to restrict something, the more profitable it becomes, and the more accessible they become as well. The more you try to restrict guns, the more profitable they will be on the black market.
And it seems to me that if it was a legal purchase in Nevada, then it would also have been a legal purchase in California?

I disagree with you, but I really wish you'd read the thread rather than force us to rehash the same points over and over.

NO, unalienable Rights are just that... and they are absolute.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
Lets take the single most important individual right, the right to life.
Can it be restricted or taken away from you?
Of course it can.
If you have done something illegal or threatening, then someone else could legally kill you if that was necessary due to the harm you caused.
So clearly no right could ever possibly be unrestricted.

As to "unalienable", that has little to do with legalities, but instead religion or commerce.
{...
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
...}

If you start to illegally begin firing at someone, then they have the right of defense to shoot back and kill you.
The fact you have not surrendered, sold, or transfered your right to life is not very important if you are dead due to someone else needing to defend themselves from your crime.
So again I am not sure what your point is?

Ah, another semantics expert. You cannot rape a woman... well, yes you can, but you cannot do it legally because it is illegal.

The Bill of Rights was a document that says you have an unalienable Right to certain things. If someone were to try and take your firearms, even under color of law, they would be committing an unconstitutional act.

As you quoted unalienable Rights cannot be surrendered. I had an argument earlier on this thread wherein a poster thought you could surrender unalienable Rights. You cannot as that is the essence of the word unalienable.

"Surrender -to give (something) over to the control or possession of another usually under duress..."

Thesaurus results for SURRENDER

Government can claim a power to take things from you; even think they are giving you the option of forfeiting, but they lack the authority to do the act.

I have a Right to Life. You have a Right to Life. If you begin to shoot at me, you can take my life... and the government is obligated to make you pay for that life. But, I can shoot back and defend my Right to Life because your Rights end where my nose begins. Somebody's Rights have to take precedence. So, if you violate my unalienable Rights, you must be held accountable.

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

It is more accurate to say that unalienable Rights can be suspended when a person is serving a sentence for an actual crime. Constitutionally speaking, the individual should be able to retain their Rights at the end of a prison sentence.

If we let people out of prison, we're saying they've been punished; that they have repaid their debt to society; that they are rehabilitated. If the government cannot say that, they have NO business sending dangerous people back into our streets.

I think I would agree with that.
You have to disarm people imprisoned so that guards are safe. But there really is no legal rational for letting a dangerous person out and then pretending he has to right of self defense.

If we put someone away, we must rehabilitate them, punish them and make them pay restitution. If they pose a danger to society, they must be kept in jails, prisons, mental facilities and / or under 24 / 7 supervision.

If you send them back out on the streets, they must become freemen once again in order for us to live up to the guarantees.

 

[Rigby5]

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

Then we ought to consider banning all semi-auto magazine fed rifles huh...

That is foolish first of all because rifles in general are almost never used in any crime at all, and 99% of murders are committed with pistols. And second of all because 96% of all rifles sold are semi auto. You would have to illegally confiscate about 40 million semi auto rifles owned now in order to accomplish that.
And that would start a civil war that the gun owners would win.

You're coming up short on zeroes.

"More than 4 million rifles were produced in 2016, up from 1.8 million in 2010. The National Rifle Association has estimated that 25 percent of all rifles produced in the United States are AR-15s or other semiautomatic styles, while other gun groups have said the ratio is closer to 50 percent."

U.S. gun manufacturers have produced 150 million guns since 1986 – The Denver Post

There were 5 million M1 Garands that were manufactured. Many of those were sold to civilians.

Outlawing guns will only create a black market as big as the opioid market. You need to focus on the people who will misuse the weapons when they are young, BEFORE they commit a criminal act.

Yes, it is possible you are right and there could be 400 million semi auto rifles in the US.
I was trying to be conservative though.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Several in this thread have made that argument and I’ve been debating them. You came in late. Many people take the 2nd very literally hence “shall not be infringed” makes any and all regulations illegal. I agree with you about state rights, but I we just had a kid shoot up a festival 45 minutes from my house shooting 15 and killing 3 using a gun he drove to Nevada to buy legally.

Sure maybe he could have found one on the black market if Vegas didn’t give him the easy buy. Or maybe not.

No! First of all, I did not come in late, but was in here much earlier and just started up again. Second is that everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that only restricted federal laws originally. It is true that Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, did incorporate firearms as an individual right, but that did not totally ban all state and local jurisdiction, like the 2nd amendment does to federal jurisdiction. Then the argument that no right is without restriction comes into play. I have never seen anyone claim that weapons rights can not be restricted at all, in any way.

By the way, there is state authority, but not "states rights". Only individuals have rights. But I knew what you meant.

However, I assure you that someone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by lesser penalty weapons laws. The spread of illegal drugs shows that the more you try to restrict something, the more profitable it becomes, and the more accessible they become as well. The more you try to restrict guns, the more profitable they will be on the black market.
And it seems to me that if it was a legal purchase in Nevada, then it would also have been a legal purchase in California?

I disagree with you, but I really wish you'd read the thread rather than force us to rehash the same points over and over.

NO, unalienable Rights are just that... and they are absolute.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
Lets take the single most important individual right, the right to life.
Can it be restricted or taken away from you?
Of course it can.
If you have done something illegal or threatening, then someone else could legally kill you if that was necessary due to the harm you caused.
So clearly no right could ever possibly be unrestricted.

As to "unalienable", that has little to do with legalities, but instead religion or commerce.
{...
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
...}

If you start to illegally begin firing at someone, then they have the right of defense to shoot back and kill you.
The fact you have not surrendered, sold, or transfered your right to life is not very important if you are dead due to someone else needing to defend themselves from your crime.
So again I am not sure what your point is?

Ah, another semantics expert. You cannot rape a woman... well, yes you can, but you cannot do it legally because it is illegal.

The Bill of Rights was a document that says you have an unalienable Right to certain things. If someone were to try and take your firearms, even under color of law, they would be committing an unconstitutional act.

As you quoted unalienable Rights cannot be surrendered. I had an argument earlier on this thread wherein a poster thought you could surrender unalienable Rights. You cannot as that is the essence of the word unalienable.

"Surrender -to give (something) over to the control or possession of another usually under duress..."

Thesaurus results for SURRENDER

Government can claim a power to take things from you; even think they are giving you the option of forfeiting, but they lack the authority to do the act.

I have a Right to Life. You have a Right to Life. If you begin to shoot at me, you can take my life... and the government is obligated to make you pay for that life. But, I can shoot back and defend my Right to Life because your Rights end where my nose begins. Somebody's Rights have to take precedence. So, if you violate my unalienable Rights, you must be held accountable.

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

Selling is ownership, and a 12 year old must be able to own anything, such as through an inheritance.
Ownership is not possession, and even possession should be legal if supervised by the parent or legal guardian.

Excellent... I’d propose we allow anybody to own whatever gun they want then... we can just regulate their rights to possess them

Again, you totally miss the point.
No one was ever suggesting all gun law be struck down, just all FEDERAL ones, because the Bill of Rights denied any federal jurisdiction over weapons. It is supposed to be a state or local jurisdiction.

This is not exactly right. The way our process works is that when there is a constitutional issue, it is settled in the courts. So, let's follow the whole sequence so that you understand the truth:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:



"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3) The earliest courts ruled that the Right is absolute and above the jurisdiction of the state government.

The ONLY reason we have so many laws on the books today is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it repealed the Bill of Rights as unalienable Rights. See this for more details:

Stolen Rights

Obviously no right can be absolute.
If you are harming others, such as pointing a gun at an innocent, then your right to life can be forfeit.
Your own quote qualifies with, "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." , so then it is not without possible restriction. The restrictions can be a list of lawful purposes, and then all other purposed could be banned by state of municipal laws.

Are you that dense or are you playing a game? Are you that clueless?

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (185

 

[Blues Man]

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

Your position is weak

The facts tell you that.

Over 100 million legal gun owners and most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners

So all your regulation and fees and licenses you want to impose on legal gun owners will do nothing to stop gun crimes

The only thing that will stop gun crimes that has actually been proven to do so is to uncompromisingly enforce our federal gun laws.

Yeah yeah, you think my position is weak, I think yours is weak... that stuff make zero difference.

It’s funny that you try and make the argument that most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners. First of there are still many crimes committed by people who legally purchased guns or who got their guns from people who legally purchased the guns. Second, it’s because of laws and regulations that make it so they had to get the guns illegally. That’s a good thing. Why would we want to make it easier for these guys to get guns?!

As for enforcing gun laws, I agree with you. Do you think we aren’t enforcing the laws? Sounds like a talking point without a lot of meat behind it

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who legally purchased their guns?

And if a person can get a gun legally how do you know which ones of them will commit crimes with those guns?

And no we aren't enforcing the laws because people are not going to federal prison for illegally possessing a gun.

In fact gun charges are often the first to be bargained away

In Delaware, 71% of gun charges are dropped

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

Your position is weak

The facts tell you that.

Over 100 million legal gun owners and most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners

So all your regulation and fees and licenses you want to impose on legal gun owners will do nothing to stop gun crimes

The only thing that will stop gun crimes that has actually been proven to do so is to uncompromisingly enforce our federal gun laws.

Yeah yeah, you think my position is weak, I think yours is weak... that stuff make zero difference.

It’s funny that you try and make the argument that most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners. First of there are still many crimes committed by people who legally purchased guns or who got their guns from people who legally purchased the guns. Second, it’s because of laws and regulations that make it so they had to get the guns illegally. That’s a good thing. Why would we want to make it easier for these guys to get guns?!

As for enforcing gun laws, I agree with you. Do you think we aren’t enforcing the laws? Sounds like a talking point without a lot of meat behind it

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who legally purchased their guns?

And if a person can get a gun legally how do you know which ones of them will commit crimes with those guns?

And no we aren't enforcing the laws because people are not going to federal prison for illegally possessing a gun.

In fact gun charges are often the first to be bargained away

In Delaware, 71% of gun charges are dropped

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/

There are 16 markers a minor can commit that will tell us, in advance, if they are likely to commit a violent act. If you take any 8 of those markers and throw in SSRIs, that is psychotropic drugs, that youth will commit a violent act during their lifetime.

Instead of focusing on the firearms, we should invest in identifying those minors who are visible troubled children. We should do civil interventions and help find out what the problem is and help resolve it. What we're doing in America is parenting with pills and police. It has proven to be a clusterph(*.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[Rigby5]

No! First of all, I did not come in late, but was in here much earlier and just started up again. Second is that everyone knows the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that only restricted federal laws originally. It is true that Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, did incorporate firearms as an individual right, but that did not totally ban all state and local jurisdiction, like the 2nd amendment does to federal jurisdiction. Then the argument that no right is without restriction comes into play. I have never seen anyone claim that weapons rights can not be restricted at all, in any way.

By the way, there is state authority, but not "states rights". Only individuals have rights. But I knew what you meant.

However, I assure you that someone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by lesser penalty weapons laws. The spread of illegal drugs shows that the more you try to restrict something, the more profitable it becomes, and the more accessible they become as well. The more you try to restrict guns, the more profitable they will be on the black market.
And it seems to me that if it was a legal purchase in Nevada, then it would also have been a legal purchase in California?

I disagree with you, but I really wish you'd read the thread rather than force us to rehash the same points over and over.

NO, unalienable Rights are just that... and they are absolute.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
Lets take the single most important individual right, the right to life.
Can it be restricted or taken away from you?
Of course it can.
If you have done something illegal or threatening, then someone else could legally kill you if that was necessary due to the harm you caused.
So clearly no right could ever possibly be unrestricted.

As to "unalienable", that has little to do with legalities, but instead religion or commerce.
{...
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
...}

If you start to illegally begin firing at someone, then they have the right of defense to shoot back and kill you.
The fact you have not surrendered, sold, or transfered your right to life is not very important if you are dead due to someone else needing to defend themselves from your crime.
So again I am not sure what your point is?

Ah, another semantics expert. You cannot rape a woman... well, yes you can, but you cannot do it legally because it is illegal.

The Bill of Rights was a document that says you have an unalienable Right to certain things. If someone were to try and take your firearms, even under color of law, they would be committing an unconstitutional act.

As you quoted unalienable Rights cannot be surrendered. I had an argument earlier on this thread wherein a poster thought you could surrender unalienable Rights. You cannot as that is the essence of the word unalienable.

"Surrender -to give (something) over to the control or possession of another usually under duress..."

Thesaurus results for SURRENDER

Government can claim a power to take things from you; even think they are giving you the option of forfeiting, but they lack the authority to do the act.

I have a Right to Life. You have a Right to Life. If you begin to shoot at me, you can take my life... and the government is obligated to make you pay for that life. But, I can shoot back and defend my Right to Life because your Rights end where my nose begins. Somebody's Rights have to take precedence. So, if you violate my unalienable Rights, you must be held accountable.

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree with you, but I really wish you'd read the thread rather than force us to rehash the same points over and over.

NO, unalienable Rights are just that... and they are absolute.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
Lets take the single most important individual right, the right to life.
Can it be restricted or taken away from you?
Of course it can.
If you have done something illegal or threatening, then someone else could legally kill you if that was necessary due to the harm you caused.
So clearly no right could ever possibly be unrestricted.

As to "unalienable", that has little to do with legalities, but instead religion or commerce.
{...
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
...}

If you start to illegally begin firing at someone, then they have the right of defense to shoot back and kill you.
The fact you have not surrendered, sold, or transfered your right to life is not very important if you are dead due to someone else needing to defend themselves from your crime.
So again I am not sure what your point is?

Ah, another semantics expert. You cannot rape a woman... well, yes you can, but you cannot do it legally because it is illegal.

The Bill of Rights was a document that says you have an unalienable Right to certain things. If someone were to try and take your firearms, even under color of law, they would be committing an unconstitutional act.

As you quoted unalienable Rights cannot be surrendered. I had an argument earlier on this thread wherein a poster thought you could surrender unalienable Rights. You cannot as that is the essence of the word unalienable.

"Surrender -to give (something) over to the control or possession of another usually under duress..."

Thesaurus results for SURRENDER

Government can claim a power to take things from you; even think they are giving you the option of forfeiting, but they lack the authority to do the act.

I have a Right to Life. You have a Right to Life. If you begin to shoot at me, you can take my life... and the government is obligated to make you pay for that life. But, I can shoot back and defend my Right to Life because your Rights end where my nose begins. Somebody's Rights have to take precedence. So, if you violate my unalienable Rights, you must be held accountable.

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

The reason you can't be armed in a police station isn't because it's "reasonable." The reason is that the police department owns the police station, and that means they get to make the rules. You can tell people they can't bring weapons into your house. Is that a limitation on your 2nd amendment rights? No, it's just you exercising your property rights.

 

[Rigby5]

Selling is ownership, and a 12 year old must be able to own anything, such as through an inheritance.
Ownership is not possession, and even possession should be legal if supervised by the parent or legal guardian.

Excellent... I’d propose we allow anybody to own whatever gun they want then... we can just regulate their rights to possess them

Again, you totally miss the point.
No one was ever suggesting all gun law be struck down, just all FEDERAL ones, because the Bill of Rights denied any federal jurisdiction over weapons. It is supposed to be a state or local jurisdiction.

This is not exactly right. The way our process works is that when there is a constitutional issue, it is settled in the courts. So, let's follow the whole sequence so that you understand the truth:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:



"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3) The earliest courts ruled that the Right is absolute and above the jurisdiction of the state government.

The ONLY reason we have so many laws on the books today is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it repealed the Bill of Rights as unalienable Rights. See this for more details:

Stolen Rights

Obviously no right can be absolute.
If you are harming others, such as pointing a gun at an innocent, then your right to life can be forfeit.
Your own quote qualifies with, "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." , so then it is not without possible restriction. The restrictions can be a list of lawful purposes, and then all other purposed could be banned by state of municipal laws.

Are you that dense or are you playing a game? Are you that clueless?

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (185

I am still not getting your point.
Of course rights can not be infringed, but legal restrictions, like shooting back at you if you are robbing a bank, is not an infringement.

 

[Rigby5]

The reason for the regulations isn't public safety the one and only reason is revenue

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

Your position is weak

The facts tell you that.

Over 100 million legal gun owners and most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners

So all your regulation and fees and licenses you want to impose on legal gun owners will do nothing to stop gun crimes

The only thing that will stop gun crimes that has actually been proven to do so is to uncompromisingly enforce our federal gun laws.

Yeah yeah, you think my position is weak, I think yours is weak... that stuff make zero difference.

It’s funny that you try and make the argument that most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners. First of there are still many crimes committed by people who legally purchased guns or who got their guns from people who legally purchased the guns. Second, it’s because of laws and regulations that make it so they had to get the guns illegally. That’s a good thing. Why would we want to make it easier for these guys to get guns?!

As for enforcing gun laws, I agree with you. Do you think we aren’t enforcing the laws? Sounds like a talking point without a lot of meat behind it

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who legally purchased their guns?

And if a person can get a gun legally how do you know which ones of them will commit crimes with those guns?

And no we aren't enforcing the laws because people are not going to federal prison for illegally possessing a gun.

In fact gun charges are often the first to be bargained away

In Delaware, 71% of gun charges are dropped

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/

There are 16 markers a minor can commit that will tell us, in advance, if they are likely to commit a violent act. If you take any 8 of those markers and throw in SSRIs, that is psychotropic drugs, that youth will commit a violent act during their lifetime.

Instead of focusing on the firearms, we should invest in identifying those minors who are visible troubled children. We should do civil interventions and help find out what the problem is and help resolve it. What we're doing in America is parenting with pills and police. It has proven to be a clusterph(*.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Exactly.
By being cheap and not wanting to pay for medical access for counseling, we are costing ourselves much more in money wasted on prisons, police, and courtrooms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Gun Control - What's the Problem?”

The problem is we have conservatives – the consequence of their ignorance, willful or otherwise – propagating the wrongheaded notion that any type of firearm regulatory measure ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right and that the Second Amendment right is ‘unlimited’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem is we have conservatives engaging in ridiculous sophistry – slippery slope fallacies, post hoc fallacies, false comparison fallacies – in a failed effort to ‘justify’ their unwarranted opposition to firearm regulatory measures which are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The problem is we have conservatives contriving moronic lies about politicians advocating that all guns be ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated’ when no such measure has been introduced in any legislative body in the United States.

The problem is we have conservatives who have come to loathe Heller/McDonald and oppose its subsequent jurisprudence, ignoring the doctrines of judicial review and the supremacy of the Federal judiciary.

It’s the same problem we’ve had for decades: rightwing ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty.

 

[TRFjr]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

"Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away