Gun owner paranoia---

[schmidlap]

... So we see that there is a restriction built in to the second amendment

As affirmed by an avowed "originalist": Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written.

 

[schmidlap]

The 2nd Amendment is a bar on federal authority. PERIOD.

Please provide your case citation for such a preposterous ruling ever being adjudicated.

 

[Flash]

"Shall not infringe" ...

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written...

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

You are confused.

Scalia is not around to define what he meant, is he? I bet you a dollar to a donut that what he meant was much different than what the stupid anti American Liberty hating Moon Bats wished he had meant.

The problem with you idiot Moon Bats is that you don't want to apply Strict Scrutiny to the Second Amendment. Most Federal, State and Local gun laws in this country would fail the Strict Scrutiny test.

We all know that we can't really trust the Courts to defend our individual Liberty. They have screwed the pooch too many times for us to trust them. However, now that we have a majority of Conservatives on the Court we need to have the right case so that the Court can establish that the Federal, State and Local government must have a damn good reason to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, just like they must have on freedom of speech or freedom of religion. That would negate about 95% of these stupid gun laws in the country like background checks, magazine bans, gun bans etc.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2nd Amendment is a bar on federal authority. PERIOD.

Please provide your case citation for such a preposterous ruling ever being adjudicated.

Start with this case, and get back to me with questions:

U.S. v. Emerson

 

[ThisIsMe]

"Shall not infringe" ...

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written...

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Here's why that is dangerous: who decides what the restrictions are? What checks are there against abuse of the power to create restrictions? How far can that group of people "restrict" before it borders on infringement of rights? Who decides if rights are being infringed?

You see, your definition of appropriate restrictions may be vastly different than someone else's. So, whos right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's why that is dangerous: who decides what the restrictions are? What checks are there against abuse of the power to create restrictions? How far can that group of people "restrict" before it borders on infringement of rights? Who decides if rights are being infringed?

You see, your definition of appropriate restrictions may be vastly different than someone else's. So, whos right?

Exactly. This gun bill being proposed would require all gun owners to obtain a federal license, and get approval from a shrink after a psychological exam. Of course they will choose leftist anti-gun shrinks, and just about nobody will be able to get a firearm. Then what? Then you'd have to go to court, likely have a shrink of your choice testify you can reasonably own a firearm, and it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to fight this process before they would allow you to own one.

The goal of the commies is to make it as difficult as possible to buy new firearms, parts or ammo. They hate the Constitution and always have. This is just one of their ways to get around it.

 

[Mr Natural]

Gun ownership goes hand-in-hand with paranoia.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gun ownership goes hand-in-hand with paranoia.

Paranoia of what? Is getting house or apartment insurance paranoia?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Here's why that is dangerous: who decides what the restrictions are? What checks are there against abuse of the power to create restrictions? How far can that group of people "restrict" before it borders on infringement of rights? Who decides if rights are being infringed?

You see, your definition of appropriate restrictions may be vastly different than someone else's. So, whos right?

Exactly. This gun bill being proposed would require all gun owners to obtain a federal license, and get approval from a shrink after a psychological exam. Of course they will choose leftist anti-gun shrinks, and just about nobody will be able to get a firearm. Then what? Then you'd have to go to court, likely have a shrink of your choice testify you can reasonably own a firearm, and it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to fight this process before they would allow you to own one.

The goal of the commies is to make it as difficult as possible to buy new firearms, parts or ammo. They hate the Constitution and always have. This is just one of their ways to get around it.

Yeah, and the bar is low for what constitutes "crazy" now days.


Support a particular candidate? You're crazy! Question an election, or a policy from and elected official? You're unhinged! They don't ever question why you support that candidate or why you question a policy. They have already decided that if you do these things, then you are guilty and mentally unstable and therefore unqualified to own a firearm.

 

[2aguy]

"Shall not infringe" ...

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written...

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

And he stated what they are...which is the thing you guys keep wanting to ignore, so you can then declare that Scalia's opinion allowsbanning and confiscation

What did Scalia point to when he mentioned limits?

I think you won't answer that....but I will...

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[miketx]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

To the stain pile, retard.

 

[2aguy]

All federal firearms laws or regulations are unconstitutional on their face.

False.

Agiain, nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written...

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Do you understand that Scalia...who you just put forward .....also stated that the AR-15 rifle is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment? Do you realize that?

Keep in mind...when he wrote this opinion there were about 5 million AR-15s in private hands...there are now over 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[miketx]

I never had an AR, instead I got two AK's.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".

Lets not forget that a license is required to operate a car.

 

[Flash]

Gun ownership goes hand-in-hand with paranoia.

Hating Liberty goes hand in hand with tyranny.

 

[Flash]

I never had an AR, instead I got two AK's.

Commie!

 

[Missourian]

[

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

Because you've traditionally operated in such bad faith that we don't trust you anymore.

And a lot of you have no idea what you're advocating for, due to ignorance on the subject of firearms and firearm law.

 

[2aguy]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".

Lets not forget that a license is required to operate a car.

Cars are not protected by the Constitution....what about that is hard for you guys to understand?

The Right to vote? The democrat party tried to stop their former black slaves from voting....they used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to do it.........

As to registration.....we know from history that the only reason to register guns is to later come back and ban them and confiscate them....Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Canada, New Zealand, Australia.......they first registered guns...to make sure the government knew who owned them....then later the same governments used the registration lists to ban and confiscate them...

The government doesn't use registration of cars to confiscate or ban them....

The government does use registration to ban and confiscate guns.....

 

[schmidlap]

Start with this case, and get back to me with questions:

U.S. v. Emerson

Your cited case is in no way a ruling that "The 2nd Amendment is a bar on federal authority. PERIOD."

In fact, the federal government has jurisdiction over firearms in a number of areas:

I POSSESSION OR RECEIPT OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY A PROHIBITED PERSON​

​

II. KNOWINGLY SELL, GIVE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO ANY PERSON WHO FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES...​

​

III. USE, CARRY OR POSSESS A FIREARM IN RELATION TO OR IN FURTHERANCE OF A FEDERAL DRUG FELONY OR A FEDERAL CRIME OF VIOLENCE.​

​

V. FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE​

​

VI. KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE CERTAIN FIREARMS​

​

VII. SELL, DELIVER OR TRANSFER FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO A JUVENILE​

​

Federal Firearms Laws

www.justice.gov

​

​

​

​

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".

Lets not forget that a license is required to operate a car.

Cars are not protected by the Constitution....what about that is hard for you guys to understand?

The Right to vote? The democrat party tried to stop their former black slaves from voting....they used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to do it.........

As to registration.....we know from history that the only reason to register guns is to later come back and ban them and confiscate them....Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Canada, New Zealand, Australia.......they first registered guns...to make sure the government knew who owned them....then later the same governments used the registration lists to ban and confiscate them...

The government doesn't use registration of cars to confiscate or ban them....

The government does use registration to ban and confiscate guns.....

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

However, I appreciate that there are those who would go too far and attempt what you fear. Rational people should be able to find common ground.

I found most of what you wrote well thought but the comment about history is a hasty generalization.