Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution. Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level. From the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.

I responded to the point you made regarding private property.

The Bill of Rights regards individual rights. Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?" That just stupid, even for Canadians. Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey? You know it's barely past noon

Nothing but Northern diversions?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right, that's what I said. Your point is?

 

[kaz]

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

Yes

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Yes, unless you have been convicted of a crime with the due process of law. What about that confuses you? You are saying jails are unconstitutional? Clearly that is depriving people of their liberty. That's stupid

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

Right, unless through a Constitutional process you are convicted of a crime allowing your life, liberty and property to be infringed on.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

What gun supporters have argued that gun rights can't be restricted for convicted felons? No idea what you are talking about. You need to show me that.

You are the only one making the idiotic argument that the right to life, liberty and property cannot be restricted even with the due process of law. No one else is arguing that, no one

 

[danielpalos]

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.

I responded to the point you made regarding private property.

The Bill of Rights regards individual rights. Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?" That just stupid, even for Canadians. Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey? You know it's barely past noon

Nothing but Northern diversions?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right, that's what I said. Your point is?

Not quite. You were too busy with Northern diversions.

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

 

[kaz]

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."

Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law. That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant. You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?

 

[westwall]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.

That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.

I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.

You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.

I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.

It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun. All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.

Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.

So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.

I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.

Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.

Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

Yes

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Yes, unless you have been convicted of a crime with the due process of law. What about that confuses you? You are saying jails are unconstitutional? Clearly that is depriving people of their liberty. That's stupid

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

Right, unless through a Constitutional process you are convicted of a crime allowing your life, liberty and property to be infringed on.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

What gun supporters have argued that gun rights can't be restricted for convicted felons? No idea what you are talking about. You need to show me that.

You are the only one making the idiotic argument that the right to life, liberty and property cannot be restricted even with the due process of law. No one else is arguing that, no one

I suggest you read the comments from some of you gunr pals, many (most) claim the right to own a gun is absolute. Any and every effort for gun control is met with "shall not be infringed". No one until now has argued "shall not be infringed unless a judge says so"

The irony of your post is most of the Crazy Right Wing bitch about a judge or justice making law, and here you are stating they can but legislatures cannot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.

I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.

You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.

I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.

It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun. All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.

Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.

So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.

I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.

Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.

Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

 

[westwall]

I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.

Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.

Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

 

[kaz]

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

Yes

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Yes, unless you have been convicted of a crime with the due process of law. What about that confuses you? You are saying jails are unconstitutional? Clearly that is depriving people of their liberty. That's stupid

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

Right, unless through a Constitutional process you are convicted of a crime allowing your life, liberty and property to be infringed on.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

What gun supporters have argued that gun rights can't be restricted for convicted felons? No idea what you are talking about. You need to show me that.

You are the only one making the idiotic argument that the right to life, liberty and property cannot be restricted even with the due process of law. No one else is arguing that, no one

I suggest you read the comments from some of you gunr pals, many (most) claim the right to own a gun is absolute. Any and every effort for gun control is met with "shall not be infringed". No one until now has argued "shall not be infringed unless a judge says so"

The irony of your post is most of the Crazy Right Wing bitch about a judge or justice making law, and here you are stating they can but legislatures cannot.

No, they are not saying that criminals, aka people who have been convicted with the due process of law, can have guns, you are .... full ... of ... shit ...

 

[kaz]

Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher. He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid

 

[westwall]

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher. He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid

He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.

He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text. Yes or no?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher. He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid

He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.

He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.

I do care, which is why I pay attention to others opinions. Well, not every opinion by every person posting, some you'll have to admit are damn stupid, intrinsically.

In fact I believe in the rule of law, and thus I believe the COTUS is the supreme rule of our land. I also believe the genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, allowing generations of Americans to argue and debate its meaning within the context of the times and experience.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BTW Kaz, calling people stupid is an admission the author has no ability to provide a rebuttal, it is a classic example of an emotionally charged logical fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."

Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law. That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant. You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?

Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.

 

[westwall]

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text. Yes or no?

The Right of the PEOPLE, once you have violated another persons rights you are no longer "of the PEOPLE". Understand?

 

[westwall]

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher. He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid

He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.

He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.

I do care, which is why I pay attention to others opinions. Well, not every opinion by every person posting, some you'll have to admit are damn stupid, intrinsically.

In fact I believe in the rule of law, and thus I believe the COTUS is the supreme rule of our land. I also believe the genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, allowing generations of Americans to argue and debate its meaning within the context of the times and experience.

No, you really don't. You clearly don't care about the COTUS save in how to work around its controls on government. I find it laughable that you claim to care about it and yet you make broad statements that are the exact opposite of what the document says.

That is very telling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher. He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid

He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.

He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.

I do care, which is why I pay attention to others opinions. Well, not every opinion by every person posting, some you'll have to admit are damn stupid, intrinsically.

In fact I believe in the rule of law, and thus I believe the COTUS is the supreme rule of our land. I also believe the genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, allowing generations of Americans to argue and debate its meaning within the context of the times and experience.

No, you really don't. You clearly don't care about the COTUS save in how to work around its controls on government. I find it laughable that you claim to care about it and yet you make broad statements that are the exact opposite of what the document says.

That is very telling.

LOL, I posted a direct quote, to wit: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and you claim I, "make broad statements that are the exact opposite of what the document says."!

You are the one who argues a judge or justice has the authority to make law by taking this absolute right (according to M14 shooter and others) away from someone by fair treatment through the normal judicial system.

Thus ... drum roll please ... the Second Amendment in your own words is NOT Sacrosanct.

 

[danielpalos]

The People is ambiguous since the People are the Militia.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The People is ambiguous since the People are the Militia.

An interesting read:

The Dick Act and Gun Control - The Volokh Conspiracy