Gun owner paranoia---

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

 

[miketx]

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

Commie!

Nyet!

 

[miketx]

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.

Driving is not a right.

 

[schmidlap]

Scalia is not around to define what he meant, is he?

Nor are the Founding Fathers, so Scalia could no more presume to define what they meant than we can define what he meant.

All constitutional law is, as of necessity, interpretive.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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

Meanwhile, you voted for global criminal leniency and abolition of pretrial detention and all forms of bail and bond even for violent criminals.

Typical of tyrants trying to seize absolute power regardless of the cost to society.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Scalia is not around to define what he meant, is he?

Nor are the Founding Fathers, so Scalia could no more presume to define what they meant than we can define what he meant.

All constitutional law is, as of necessity, interpretive.

interpret THIS .....

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia.
It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Well I totally agree with that.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It's a "Right to Bear Arms"

Not a "Right To Go Hunting"

 

[2aguy]

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.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

 

[schmidlap]

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

"They" want to ban cars just as much as "they" want to ban guns.

Whatever "they" one needs is always out there.

 

[2aguy]

Scalia is not around to define what he meant, is he?

Nor are the Founding Fathers, so Scalia could no more presume to define what they meant than we can define what he meant.

All constitutional law is, as of necessity, interpretive.

Scalia was clear....


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.

 

[schmidlap]

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.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

It does qualify the right by prefacing it with a truncated dependent claus "A well regulated militia..."

To argue that the Founding Fathers were just being unnecessarily garrulous and that their words should be selectively ignored as being utterly superfluous - as if they had noted, "Magnolias perfuming the air, the right of the People..."

Of course, the phrase posits a no-longer valid proposition. A well-regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State - as amply demonstrated by an abundance of free states without well-regulated militia.

 

[schmidlap]

Scalia was clear....

He was certainly clear when he stated that there are some limitations that can be imposed on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that it's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are.

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

 

[2aguy]

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.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

It does qualify the right by prefacing it with a truncated dependent claus "A well regulated militia..."

To argue that the Founding Fathers were just being unnecessarily garrulous and that their words should be selectively ignored as being utterly superfluous - as if they had noted, "Magnolias perfuming the air, the right of the People..."

Of course, the phrase posits a no-longer valid proposition. A well-regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State - as amply demonstrated by an abundance of free states without well-regulated militia.

And in Heller Scalia goes all through this....showing you don't know what you are talking about.......

 

[2aguy]

Scalia was clear....

He was certainly clear when he stated that there are some limitations that can be imposed on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that it's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are.

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

And you ignore the statements he actually made about what isn't in doubt.....

AR-15s and rifles like them are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

This is what Scalia actually said......which you want to ignore....

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

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

 

[Turtlesoup]

You are confused Moon Bat.

You can own a car without any requirement including a driver's license.

There is no Consitional right to drive on a public highway and the government can pretty well regulate it how they want. However, there is a Consititional right to keep and bear arms. I shit you not. Go look it up. It is the second listed item in the Bill of Rights. It says that the government can't infringe upon that right.

Your raising the matter of potentially-lethal cars being registered, carefully regulated, and their operators required to demonstrate competence, is still a valid one. And there are numerous sensible restrictions concerning where even a duly-licensed person is allowed to operate one as well.

indeed, Sunshine, permissiveness in allowing incompetents free reign in use of their deadly devices is clearly ill-advised.

You are confused Moon Bat

You obviously don't uderstand what the Bill of Rights is all about, do you? You Moon Bats are often confused about things like this.

Let me first tell you what it does say; "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Let me tell you what it doesn't say; "the right to keep and bear shall be infringed at the whim of a stupid Libtard politician".

I don't know why you Moon Bats are so afraid of us White guys having firearms. It is your Negro buddies that are using them for crime all the time. You should go after them for violating the laws that are already in existence. You are too chickenshit to do that, aren't you Cupcake?

Give 'em hell!!

 

[Flash]

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

Commie!

Nyet!

Back in the 1990s I had several AKs and SKSs. Cheap to shoot and they look intimidating but not very good firearms. The sights are terrible.

After awhile I got rid of them.

The AR platform is better.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The question I always ask haters of the 2nd Amendment, and this question never really gets answered, is this:

Why are the gun laws we pass always directed at the law abiding citizen, and not the criminal?

You say you want to take away my AR-15's. Here's the thing: Passing that law won't result in someone not being shot by those guns, simply because I wasn't going to shoot anyone with them in the first place. The net benefit of passing that law is zero. Requiring me to register my guns will, in no way, shape or form, stop some thug from holding up the corner liquor store.

Why are you not going after the criminal element? Go after those guys. Make punishments for crimes committed with firearms downright cruel and draconian. Make even illegal possession of a firearm a felony. Make the punishments so horrific that even the most hardened criminal would look at them and say "Aw, fuck no" when thinking about committing a crime.

New laws don't make anyone safer. Registering guns makes so one safer. Requiring me to sell my guns back to the government is not going to stop the next school shooting.

While I could applaud the left for wanting to address gun violence, I refuse to, simply because they're going about it all wrong...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It does qualify the right by prefacing it with a truncated dependent claus "A well regulated militia..."

To argue that the Founding Fathers were just being unnecessarily garrulous and that their words should be selectively ignored as being utterly superfluous - as if they had noted, "Magnolias perfuming the air, the right of the People..."

Of course, the phrase posits a no-longer valid proposition. A well-regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State - as amply demonstrated by an abundance of free states without well-regulated militia.

But people back then talked differently than we do today. We bastardized the English language.

How A Comma Gave Americans The Right To Own Guns

The Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on hand guns, the strictest gun control law to date, because of a comma.

www.businessinsider.com