CDZ How We Will Finally Deal With Guns America

[westwall]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

France already did that. I doubt it gives any solace to the families of the 130 who were murdered.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We will? We're going to deny every one else's rights because a criminal committed a crime?


No, leftist, I know it's your wet dream, but this is your dry-up notice: Not going to happen.

 

[westwall]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Well regulated means "in good working order" I know, English. Who knew?

 

[westwall]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Guns is just an object, go after the root cause...




Liberalism and their quest for a new Sodom and gormorrah .

 

[harmonica]

you can't buy alcohol till 21...if that was the case here---no one would've died
he could've used a bomb--but much much harder to build, and activate

 

[Geaux4it]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

I don't agree with your plan

Good luck with that

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

 

[Pogo]

Guns is just an object, go after the root cause...

Hear hear. Exactamente.

Liberalism and their quest for a new Sodom and gormorrah .

Again, ironical quip is ironical. Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Guns is just an object, go after the root cause...

Hear hear. Exactamente.

Liberalism and their quest for a new Sodom and gormorrah .

Again, ironical quip is ironical. Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment.

Clap trap not the definition I use today for liberals and why the deflection from my post?

 

[fncceo]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any...

And end right there. Do you even know any Americans?

But, please. I'm begging you. Make gun prohibition a Democratic Party agenda in 2018 / 2020.

I double dare you ...

 

[westwall]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

Yes, it means that the militia is made up of the people, and if the people aren't allowed to keep their guns in their homes then they can't be kept in good working order. Here, I'll help you a little....

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[MrShangles]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

That’s a good idea, BUT where’s the part about how your going to get criminals to go by this new fantasy, y’all do understand that criminals by nature don’t worry about laws, and to me it looks like you’re only hurting the law abiding Americans, please explain.
I will probably only hear crickets as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

Guns is just an object, go after the root cause...

Hear hear. Exactamente.

Liberalism and their quest for a new Sodom and gormorrah .

Again, ironical quip is ironical. Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment.

Indeed, and do you even know what it meant to be a classical liberal? It meant FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT. So, how do you reconcile all the writings of the Founders who ALL say that your interpretation is wrong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Congress would never enact a new AWB.

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, a new AWB would never pass Constitutional muster.

 

[BlackSand]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Is there anything else you want for Christmas ... I'll make sure Santa gets your list.

Nah really though ... You have nothing to compromise with.
Your position has no leverage and people aren't required to fall to your desires because you want to exploit a tragedy.

I mean I am not even arguing the merit of any of your ideas ... Because that's the point.
You have NOTHING to offer in any compromise we could possibly arrive at.

Go pound sand ...

.

 

[westwall]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Congress would never enact a new AWB.

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, a new AWB would never pass Constitutional muster.

Nor should it. The US V Miller decision of 1934 makes it pretty plain that only military style firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled because it "had no foreseeable military purpose".

 

[Wyatt earp]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No it's not grammatical train wreck, it's written that way exactly on purpose.



.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Correct.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ it’s subject to restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

But Congress must first act to indeed implement those restrictions, which it refuses to do.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Congress would never enact a new AWB.

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, a new AWB would never pass Constitutional muster.

Nor should it. The US V Miller decision of 1934 makes it pretty plain that only military style firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled because it "had no foreseeable military purpose".

Interesting I always wondered why sawed off shotguns could get you in big trouble.