It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[bigrebnc1775]

...no can do my rights are not subject to your wishes and wants...

Correct. However, you are subject to future Law legislated and court-vetted on the subject, and that's coming soon enough, as history measures time.

...FYI well regulated means in working order as to be expected.

It means what The Law says it means, once legislated and challenged and reaffirmed by the courts.

nope you need to amend the 2nd amendment

No amendment necessary. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time.

No it doesn't

 

[pismoe]

Correct. However, you are subject to future Law legislated and court-vetted on the subject, and that's coming soon enough, as history measures time.

It means what The Law says it means, once legislated and challenged and reaffirmed by the courts.

nope you need to amend the 2nd amendment

No amendment necessary. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time.

Then this is a dictatorship and we have no obligation to follow any law, the social contract is null and void.

Thankfully, what you babble is utter bullshit.

Case law proves you wrong.

Supreme Court Cases on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

You really are quite stupid.

Your own link refutes you, you should have read it.

{Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms,}

Dumb fake Indian...

------------------------------------------ I could be wrong but there is an argument that the Bill of Rights , the first 10 are God Given and existed even before the Bill of Rights and are 'inalienable' and can't be changed or Amended away . What , does the the gov have the right to amend away Freedom of Speech or Religion ??

 

[pismoe]

so I guess that the RIGHTS that I say are God Given could also be called 'NATURAL RIGHTs' that man had even before the Bill of Rights existed . If so , how does an Amendment simply dissolve Natural Rights except at the barrel of a Gun Lakhota .

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

When does the left compromise?

 

[pismoe]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

When does the left compromise?

------------------------------- thing is that I reject any compromise on GUN's for example . Just a comment .

 

[Rustic]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

When does the left compromise?

------------------------------- thing is that I reject any compromise on GUN's for example . Just a comment .

The point is, the left DOESN'T COMPROMISE even though they demand it of others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco. There is one for firearms

Oh, you'll get to keep firearm(s)... so there'll be no violation of your Constitutional rights.
It's just that you'll need a Class A or B or C or D -type license for various classes of weapons...

Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

 

[Rigby5]

nope you need to amend the 2nd amendment

No amendment necessary. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time.

Then this is a dictatorship and we have no obligation to follow any law, the social contract is null and void.

Thankfully, what you babble is utter bullshit.

Case law proves you wrong.

Supreme Court Cases on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

You really are quite stupid.

Your own link refutes you, you should have read it.

{Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms,}

Dumb fake Indian...

------------------------------------------ I could be wrong but there is an argument that the Bill of Rights , the first 10 are God Given and existed even before the Bill of Rights and are 'inalienable' and can't be changed or Amended away . What , does the the gov have the right to amend away Freedom of Speech or Religion ??

Probably correct.
The Bill of Rights are so basic that to try to amend them now, after the fact, would essentially be a breach of contract.
That would mean you would have to get all the states to choose once again if they even wanted to be part of the US or not.
And with something that centralized and draconian as gun control, I doubt if many states other than CA and NY would join. Certainly none of the rural or wilderness states would join under those conditions. The US would essentially disappear.

 

[Rigby5]

so I guess that the RIGHTS that I say are God Given could also be called 'NATURAL RIGHTs' that man had even before the Bill of Rights existed . If so , how does an Amendment simply dissolve Natural Rights except at the barrel of a Gun Lakhota .

Yes, Locke, Jefferson, etc., were famous because they believed that all actual authority comes from the inherent rights of individuals. That is the basis for any democratic republic, and therefore no government can ever legally infringe upon those inherent individual rights. In a democratic republic, we the people created government, so we can never then create something with more authority than we ourselves have. There is no way for a democratic republic to authorize gun control that violates the basic right of self defense. That would give government a monopoly on power, and it could then not be called a democratic republic by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Rigby5]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

When does the left compromise?

Consensus is irrelevant when it comes to rights, and compromise can only restrict rights when necessary to ensure the rights of others. And clearly defensive gun use millions of times a year, greatly over shadow the few hundred harmed by mass shootings.

But I would not call it the "left" that supports gun control.
The liberal, progressive, left would never do that.
It is the new democratic party, after the Clintons, who support strange things like wars, gun control, repeal on banking regulations, etc. They are not at all leftist.

 

[Rigby5]

...There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco. There is one for firearms

Oh, you'll get to keep firearm(s)... so there'll be no violation of your Constitutional rights.
It's just that you'll need a Class A or B or C or D -type license for various classes of weapons...

Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

I would not even mind licensing if it were done ahead of time.
If your social security card contained a field that said you were pre-approved to buy guns, then it would not matter to me.
What I definitely do not want is for each purchase to have to be individually approved, so the federal government knows exactly what I own.
They have no business knowing that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco. There is one for firearms

Oh, you'll get to keep firearm(s)... so there'll be no violation of your Constitutional rights.
It's just that you'll need a Class A or B or C or D -type license for various classes of weapons...

Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

I would not even mind licensing if it were done ahead of time.

The state can no more license the right to keep and bear arms as it can the right to go to a mosque, the right to have an abortion, or the right to wear a jacket that says "Vote Democrat"

 

[Rigby5]

...no can do my rights are not subject to your wishes and wants...

Correct. However, you are subject to future Law legislated and court-vetted on the subject, and that's coming soon enough, as history measures time.

...FYI well regulated means in working order as to be expected.

It means what The Law says it means, once legislated and challenged and reaffirmed by the courts.

nope you need to amend the 2nd amendment

No amendment necessary. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time.

Then this is a dictatorship and we have no obligation to follow any law, the social contract is null and void.

Thankfully, what you babble is utter bullshit.

Case law proves you wrong.

Supreme Court Cases on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Your link voices opinions only, not fact, and is clearly wrong.
For example, the first case it lists is the Dred Scott decision, which not only is about slavery and not firearms, but everyone now agrees it is an example of a total failure by the SCOTUS. Dred Scott was completely wrong, not just because it violated the individual rights of the ex-slave, Dred Scott, but because it caused the jurisdiction of one state to supersede that of another state, which is clearly illegal.
Other examples, like Presser vs Illinois is also clearly a bad ruling because a sawed off shotgun most certainly IS a military weapon, and was often used in war. It is often called a coach gun, and is the more recent incarnation of the traditional navel boarding weapon, the blunderbuss. In WWI, the trench shotgun was famous.
What the link shows is the failure of the SCOTUS, not an example of what to emulate.
In fact, these failures are reminders that at some point we may have to just have another revolution, as such total failures by the judiciary, inevitably invalidate their authority.

 

[pismoe]

thankyou . And I don't know if you notice but every talking head for the last year or 2 [or longer] refers to the USA as a 'democracy' which since untrue I say that the elites and the Government may be setting the USA up for total 'mob rule' as they repeat the 'democracy' BS Lie and propaganda . For the next generation or maybe this generation of hip hopper and dopers Rigby .

 

[satrebil]

I started smoking when I was 15.

Your thread fails.

 

[Kondor3]

...Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

Nahhhhhhh... that's just "regulating" the "militia"... "well"...

 

[M14 Shooter]

...Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

Nahhhhhhh... that's just "regulating" the "militia"... "well"...

Ah... you CHOOSE to not understand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

nope you need to amend the 2nd amendment

No amendment necessary. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time.

Then this is a dictatorship and we have no obligation to follow any law, the social contract is null and void.

Thankfully, what you babble is utter bullshit.

Case law proves you wrong.

Supreme Court Cases on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

You really are quite stupid.

Your own link refutes you, you should have read it.

{Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms,}

Dumb fake Indian...

------------------------------------------ I could be wrong but there is an argument that the Bill of Rights , the first 10 are God Given and existed even before the Bill of Rights and are 'inalienable' and can't be changed or Amended away . What , does the the gov have the right to amend away Freedom of Speech or Religion ??

They are indeed inalienable rights, yet the Marxist democrats are still doing everything they can to crush them.

 

[Kondor3]

...Ah... you CHOOSE to not understand.

Nope... I CHOOSE not to adopt your position in the matter...