Dr Grump
Platinum Member
the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions][/b]
.
.
Cool. Let felons and mental patients have guns. Brilliant!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions][/b]
.
.
the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
I'm not the slightest bit "anti-gun". I probably own more guns than you do.
I noticed you don't seem to be able to answer my question, though.
He does not need to. The OP posted a video that actually outlined various ways that gun owners (and all Americans for that matter) have compromised with the gun control crowd. The fact that you could not be bothered to click the video that was imbedded for your convenience does not mean that he or anyone else on this thread should bother to do the legwork for you. How about you actually address the points given. You can ask your question again only AFTER you have addressed the examples already supplied.
It is also worthy of note that the gun advocates have absolutely ZERO burden of proof in this endeavor. It is the gun control crowd that is demanding the limiting of a right. Because of that, it is on them to not only show that the government has a valid interest in this endeavor but that the measures put forth actually address that. To date, I have not received one single piece of evidence that supports the gun control crowds case. Universally, it seems gun control laws have virtually no effect on crime rates. You dont get to limit a right just for a feel good. You need to show real and tangible gains.
Again, background checks are both Constitutional and effective in facilitating laws prohibiting the mentally ill, felons, and undocumented immigrants from possessing firearms, 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. (DC v. Heller (2008)).
Laws having no effect preventing gun violence and crime would include waiting periods, licensing, permit, and registration requirements (save that of a license to carry a concealed weapon), as well as the prohibition of the possession of firearms due to magazine design or capacity, or other superficial or cosmetic aspects such as a pistol grip or flash suppressor.
Unfortunately, current Second Amendment jurisprudence doesnt reflect this rationale, in light of the two recent rulings concerning AWBs in New York and Connecticut, respectively. Needless to say these and similar cases will likely end up before the Supreme Court.
In both of those cases each court found that an AWB indeed infringes upon the Second Amendment right, and that AR and AK type firearms are in common use. But given the courts level of judicial review, in conjunction with the states demonstrating a compelling interest and legitimate legislative end, public safety, the bans were upheld as Constitutional.
In the meantime it would seem ones Second Amendment rights are contingent upon his state of residence, where the states are at liberty to place restrictions and bans on various classes of weapons, but may not ban handguns outright nor deny a citizen the right to carry a concealed firearm.
But ones civil liberties are not dependent upon his state of residence, where the majority lacks the authority to determine who will or will not have his Constitutional rights. Gun owners are citizens of the United States first and foremost, the states and other jurisdictions lack the right to dictate to citizens who own firearms the manner in which they exercise their right of self-defense.
Its incumbent upon advocates of Second Amendment rights, therefore, to demonstrate that AWBs and similar regulations do not facilitate public safety, are an unwarranted violation of the right to self-defense, and are in no way rationally based.
ya but then the dems would say that all gun owners are nut bags and disqualify em all
Any thread on guns on USMB would kind of prove them right.
Usually a gun thread on USMB is the usual suspects talking about all the people THEY JUST CAN'T WAIT TO SHOOT!!!!
the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions][/b]
.
.
Cool. Let felons and mental patients have guns. Brilliant!
I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.
If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.
If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.
If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.
If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.
If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.
Again, background checks are both Constitutional and effective in facilitating laws prohibiting the mentally ill, felons, and undocumented immigrants from possessing firearms, 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. (DC v. Heller (2008)).
Sandy Hook almost did it. But the NRA went on the offensive. So no gun laws for preventing this type of tragedy. What is going to happen, with the continued proliferation of military weapons, is that there will finally be a massacre so horrible that the citizens of this nation will vote in laws as stringent as those in other sane first world nations. Laws that will even effect the type of traditional hunting weapons that I have. So be it, you fools have brought it on yourselves.
So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?
every damn gun law since the 1934 gun control act,
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.html
1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025enr.pdf
concessions ? we have conceded nearly every gun right we ever had, up until the 1968 gun control act a 14 y.o. boy could walk into the local hardware store with his Mom/Dad and buy his own .22 rifle and ammo. we could mail order guns, we could even buy a full auto rifle/machine gun IF we jumped thru a few Gvmt. hoops and paid the $200.00 tax stamp.
no more fucking concessions such as, "we just want you to stop smoking on airplanes" THAT is when we started conceding to you whiney assed liberfools.
FUCK YOU ALL FROM NOW ON !!
regards,
Wildman
So you've supported all those gun control laws?
Who do you claim to speak for, when you say you've "compromised" on those laws?
Colion Noir says here many of the things that I have posted here and other places many times in the past.
Gun Owners have compromised. It's time to stop.
WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.
So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?
Just goes to show how deep the ignorance is on the anti-gun side.
Amazing really . .
Actually, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you fall into my poorly-defined category of "gun nuts" perfectly.
Have you ever "compromised" on gun laws?
No actually I've followed them like all law the abiding citizens you people want to fuck with. But I agree with the guy in the video, it's way past time to stop even talking about any more gun laws. The ones we have aren't enforced and didn't work to begin with. You want to call people like me an nut go the fuck ahead, I really don't give a shit anymore. Someday you may decide to become part of the solution instead of being the problem.
Who you callin' "you people"?
I don't support a vast majority of gun control laws.
When I Am Called A Racist.., I Know I Have Won The Discussion
[
Who you callin' "you people"?
I don't support a vast majority of gun control laws.
so, which ones do you support ?
i support one and only one...,
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
notice, there are no comas, periods or any other punctuation marks in the bold highlighted the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed., that is the part that all liberals, anti-gun fools etc., fail miserably at understanding.![]()
Those guys had issues and probably should have been in a happy farm but that's considered cruel these days. As far as the militia goes, a militia IS armed, that's part of the definition. The 2nd A says "the people" for a reason. We don't need a crystal ball since the founders wrote about what they meant and the language is clear to all but those who want the people disarmed.But you keep ignoring the part about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
A "WELL-REGULATED" militia would not include these guys.
Those guys had issues and probably should have been in a happy farm but that's considered cruel these days. As far as the militia goes, a militia IS armed, that's part of the definition. The 2nd A says "the people" for a reason. We don't need a crystal ball since the founders wrote about what they meant and the language is clear to all but those who want the people disarmed.But you keep ignoring the part about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
A "WELL-REGULATED" militia would not include these guys.
Registration is an infringement.I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.
If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.
If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.
If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.
If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.
If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.