Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[80zephyr]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia.

No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't.

The people who wrote and ratified the BOR feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authority to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in this country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming miles away.

So you are effectively saying that Justice Scalia, the ubber "conservative" Supreme, erred in his opinion and got it all wrong in D. C. v. Heller, and you know what is right knowing more constitutional law and with a better grasp of it than Justice Scalia. Now where EXACTLY did Justice Scalia get it wrong when he wrote in his opinion the following;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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. [Emphasis Added]

Of course you could double down on your error and claim SCOTUS has no power of Judicial Review, thereby denying over 200 years of the High Court's historical precedent and Hamilton's explanation of judicial review in Federalist #81 where he wrote;

A technical sense has been affixed to the term "appellate," which, in our law parlance, is commonly used in reference to appeals in the course of the civil law. But if I am not misinformed, the same meaning would not be given to it in any part of New England. There an appeal from one jury to another, is familiar both in language and practice, and is even a matter of course, until there have been two verdicts on one side. The word "appellate," therefore, will not be understood in the same sense in New England as in New York, which shows the impropriety of a technical interpretation derived from the jurisprudence of any particular State. The expression, taken in the abstract, denotes nothing more than the power of one tribunal to review the proceedings of another, either as to the law or fact, or both. [Emphasis Added]

So according to SCOTUS and the Constitution your assertion that, "No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't" is in gross error.

No, Scalia didn't get it wrong. Its just that your idea of limits and his idea of limits are worlds apart.

Scalia on rockets

Mark

 

[Weatherman2020]

Specific:
View attachment 58878

Because in the UK where many people can't have guns, this happens all the time.......

Ask the Scots who were not allowed weapons how things were.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL"

Actually we we need to be specific about the law of 'gun control.'

None of the measures proposed by some members of Congress have been ruled un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court; likewise, state and local measures currently in place have been upheld by Federal courts as being Constitutional.

Consequently, it is ignorant and factually wrong to make the claim that a given proposed measure or laws currently in place 'violate' the Second Amendment, or otherwise 'infringe' upon the Second Amendment right.

Therefore, measures such as background checks, registration and licensing requirements, waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, and restrictions on the possession of certain types of weapons are Constitutional – some may not like this fact or agree with it, but it is a fact of Constitutional law nonetheless.

Moreover, that a measure may be Constitutional doesn't mean it's appropriate, warranted, or wise – indeed, registration and licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry), waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, and restrictions on the possession of certain types of weapons are neither warranted nor appropriate.

In time some of these measures will make their way to the Supreme Court for review and a final determination as to constitutionality, but until that time these measures are in fact Constitutional, where those who advocate for such measures are not 'attacking' the Second Amendment, and anyone who claims that to advocate for such measures seeks to 'infringe' upon the Second Amendment succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance and stupidity.

 

[frigidweirdo]

ff

 

[frigidweirdo]

Specific:
View attachment 58878

Because in the UK where many people can't have guns, this happens all the time.......

Ask the Scots who were not allowed weapons how things were.

Which Scots exactly? How many living Scots will have a problem?

 

[CowboyTed]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Sorry to poke in here. Actually none of that is any of my business. If they have omitted a crime and gone to jail, they've paid for their crime and it's none of my business. Mental issues are between them and their doctor. Restraining orders are again none of my business. Even if a BC is conducted, none of that should be revealed to me if I'm the seller. A simple yes or no is all I should get.

Poking in is welcome!

This to me falls under the category of the government protecting its citizens. To me, violent criminals, mentally unstable individuals and those who represent enough of a danger to someone to be on the wrong side of a restraining order are a class of citizen who would qualify for greater scrutiny when purchasing a deadly weapon. So we'll disagree there, but I understand your point.

Let me ask you this - is there a level of compromise on the background check issue that you would consider? Examples might be waiting periods or specific personal history issues.
.

For me there is no compromise when it comes to our rights. So no.

But what about the rights of his next door neighbour... Are you happy to let your kids play in the front lawn knowing a person with mental issues and a gun lives could live next door?

 

[JoeB131]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?

Fetuses aren't people.

View attachment 58776

Life began 4 Billion years ago and is an ongoing process.

That has nothing to do with the fact that fetuses aren't people.

Get real:

View attachment 58874

Nobody has argued that a fetus isn't life.

They've argued that it doesn't have more rights than the woman it is inside.

By your logic, we should outlaw antibiotics, because we are destroying 'life' inside people's bodies when we kill all those nasty germs.

 

[JoeB131]

Specific:
View attachment 58878

Yawn, guy. Nazis didn't confiscate guns. they invaded and conquered other nations and defeated their armies. Then they people they defeated HAPPILY Handed over their Jews because they didn't like the Jews, either.

Meanwhile, in Germany, if you were a German citizen, you were perfectly able to own as many guns as you wanted. Guns were confiscated in Germany- by the allies AFTER they were defeated.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB and his idiotic friends seems to think the military is to defend the government. Fact is you numbnutted pukes, their oath is to defend the Constitution, not a tyrannical government.

Defend the constitution from all enemies, "foreign and domestic". Once someone takes up arms against the government, they become that "domestic enemy".

This argument was had and lost in the civil war.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia. Guns that aren't safe, guns that don't work properly etc etc aren't protected.
An individual can't have a nuclear weapon, for example. Why not? Because it's not a usual militia weapon and also it doesn't meet the requirements of what the militia is all about.

As long as individuals are able to own militia type weapons, then the govt hasn't done anything wrong. The limitation on power merely prevents the US govt stopping people being able to own arms, not stopping them owning ALL TYPES of arms.

The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but not to give the individuals the right to own EVERY type of weapon.

There is a fine line between what is and what isn't acceptable as a weapon, and who decides is based on what the govt says in the first place. That doesn't mean it's an open ended book.

Repeating your error won't make it true. The people have the right to bear arms, there's a 230 year discussion on why, only lately do post modern liberals think they've unveiled the real truth. The people tell the government what they want, Fuckhead, NOT the other way around!

I didn't say the people didn't have a right to bear arms. In fact I said people DO have a right to bear arms. So, me "repeating" my "error" is in fact you making stuff up about what I said.

What I did say was that the US govt has basically annulled 2A on this because they have simply made an "unorganized militia" and said that all men are in it (seems women don't give a stuff if they're in it or not) and therefore the US govt isn't taking away your right to bear arms.

The equivalent would be the US govt giving every male aged 18-45 a paper gun that doesn't fire, and then everyone being happy that they have a gun.

Yes, you repeatedly said stupid shit, that's called an error. You said :
"The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply..."

That's wrong and it's been pointed out many times. There's no reason to say a militia has the right to bear arms, a militia is armed by definition. Then there's that word that confuses post modern liberals, "people". They can't figure out what it means.

 

[JoeB131]

No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't.

The people who wrote and ratified the BOR feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authority to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in this country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming miles away.

The people who wrote the BOR shit in chamber pots, bled themselves when they got sick and raped their slaves... why should we consider what they said "Holy Writ"?

Frankly, I want someone saying the criminally inclined and the insane shouldn't have guns. And when one of you nuts gets on here saying about how you just can't wait to shoot government agents and black people, I think we should seriously look at taking your guns, too.

 

[iolo]

Most countries have their own weird cranks, like the British with their reverence for the dreadful, lying newspapers which they call the 'free press'. The trouble with your gun-nuttiness is that it kills such vast numbers unnecessarily.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia. Guns that aren't safe, guns that don't work properly etc etc aren't protected.
An individual can't have a nuclear weapon, for example. Why not? Because it's not a usual militia weapon and also it doesn't meet the requirements of what the militia is all about.

As long as individuals are able to own militia type weapons, then the govt hasn't done anything wrong. The limitation on power merely prevents the US govt stopping people being able to own arms, not stopping them owning ALL TYPES of arms.

The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but not to give the individuals the right to own EVERY type of weapon.

There is a fine line between what is and what isn't acceptable as a weapon, and who decides is based on what the govt says in the first place. That doesn't mean it's an open ended book.

Repeating your error won't make it true. The people have the right to bear arms, there's a 230 year discussion on why, only lately do post modern liberals think they've unveiled the real truth. The people tell the government what they want, Fuckhead, NOT the other way around!

I didn't say the people didn't have a right to bear arms. In fact I said people DO have a right to bear arms. So, me "repeating" my "error" is in fact you making stuff up about what I said.

What I did say was that the US govt has basically annulled 2A on this because they have simply made an "unorganized militia" and said that all men are in it (seems women don't give a stuff if they're in it or not) and therefore the US govt isn't taking away your right to bear arms.

The equivalent would be the US govt giving every male aged 18-45 a paper gun that doesn't fire, and then everyone being happy that they have a gun.

Yes, you repeatedly said stupid shit, that's called an error. You said :
"The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply..."

That's wrong and it's been pointed out many times. There's no reason to say a militia has the right to bear arms, a militia is armed by definition. Then there's that word that confuses post modern liberals, "people". They can't figure out what it means.

What I love about your post is that you say it's wrong, and the reason you give for it being wrong is that "it has been pointed out many times", as if someone saying something enough times makes it true.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

Also, I didn't say the militia has the right to bear arms. I don't know where you're making this stuff up from, but I'd prefer it if you ACTUALLY READ WHAT THE FUCK I WRITE, instead of deciding what I've written based on what other people say.

So, go read my posts and then come back to me when you've actually bothered to understand what I wrote.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia. Guns that aren't safe, guns that don't work properly etc etc aren't protected.
An individual can't have a nuclear weapon, for example. Why not? Because it's not a usual militia weapon and also it doesn't meet the requirements of what the militia is all about.

As long as individuals are able to own militia type weapons, then the govt hasn't done anything wrong. The limitation on power merely prevents the US govt stopping people being able to own arms, not stopping them owning ALL TYPES of arms.

The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but not to give the individuals the right to own EVERY type of weapon.

There is a fine line between what is and what isn't acceptable as a weapon, and who decides is based on what the govt says in the first place. That doesn't mean it's an open ended book.

Repeating your error won't make it true. The people have the right to bear arms, there's a 230 year discussion on why, only lately do post modern liberals think they've unveiled the real truth. The people tell the government what they want, Fuckhead, NOT the other way around!

I didn't say the people didn't have a right to bear arms. In fact I said people DO have a right to bear arms. So, me "repeating" my "error" is in fact you making stuff up about what I said.

What I did say was that the US govt has basically annulled 2A on this because they have simply made an "unorganized militia" and said that all men are in it (seems women don't give a stuff if they're in it or not) and therefore the US govt isn't taking away your right to bear arms.

The equivalent would be the US govt giving every male aged 18-45 a paper gun that doesn't fire, and then everyone being happy that they have a gun.

Yes, you repeatedly said stupid shit, that's called an error. You said :
"The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply..."

That's wrong and it's been pointed out many times. There's no reason to say a militia has the right to bear arms, a militia is armed by definition. Then there's that word that confuses post modern liberals, "people". They can't figure out what it means.

What I love about your post is that you say it's wrong, and the reason you give for it being wrong is that "it has been pointed out many times", as if someone saying something enough times makes it true.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

Also, I didn't say the militia has the right to bear arms. I don't know where you're making this stuff up from, but I'd prefer it if you ACTUALLY READ WHAT THE FUCK I WRITE, instead of deciding what I've written based on what other people say.

So, go read my posts and then come back to me when you've actually bothered to understand what I wrote.

I said it's been pointed out many times to demonstrate that you're an idiot, not for the reasons you think. And you can't read, I said a militia is armed by definition. They included the word people for a reason, that apparently is beyond your grasp. It was argued all the way up the SCOTUS even though is was never a mystery.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

JoeB and his idiotic friends seems to think the military is to defend the government. Fact is you numbnutted pukes, their oath is to defend the Constitution, not a tyrannical government.

Defend the constitution from all enemies, "foreign and domestic". Once someone takes up arms against the government, they become that "domestic enemy".

This argument was had and lost in the civil war.

Not if that government is tyrannical and going against the Constitution.....DUMBASS!

The Armed Forces are sworn to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

You are one stupid fuck!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia.

No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't.

The people who wrote and ratified the BOR feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authority to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in this country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming miles away.

So you are effectively saying that Justice Scalia, the ubber "conservative" Supreme, erred in his opinion and got it all wrong in D. C. v. Heller, and you know what is right knowing more constitutional law and with a better grasp of it than Justice Scalia. Now where EXACTLY did Justice Scalia get it wrong when he wrote in his opinion the following;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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. [Emphasis Added]

Of course you could double down on your error and claim SCOTUS has no power of Judicial Review, thereby denying over 200 years of the High Court's historical precedent and Hamilton's explanation of judicial review in Federalist #81 where he wrote;

A technical sense has been affixed to the term "appellate," which, in our law parlance, is commonly used in reference to appeals in the course of the civil law. But if I am not misinformed, the same meaning would not be given to it in any part of New England. There an appeal from one jury to another, is familiar both in language and practice, and is even a matter of course, until there have been two verdicts on one side. The word "appellate," therefore, will not be understood in the same sense in New England as in New York, which shows the impropriety of a technical interpretation derived from the jurisprudence of any particular State. The expression, taken in the abstract, denotes nothing more than the power of one tribunal to review the proceedings of another, either as to the law or fact, or both. [Emphasis Added]

So according to SCOTUS and the Constitution your assertion that, "No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't" is in gross error.

No, Scalia didn't get it wrong. Its just that your idea of limits and his idea of limits are worlds apart.

Scalia on rockets

Mark

So show me PRECIESLY where either I or Justice Scalia established any limits in the post to which you refer to even be compared, one to the other, and PRECISELY how they differ!

How much did you pay for that crystal ball that lets you see into the minds of others and to read between the lines of a post so bloody accurately? It's time to take it in for repairs, I'm thinkin'!

 

[the_human_being]

From a purely political standpoint, Obama's actions will cause more voters, some even Democrats, to vote for a Republican candidate than to vote for a Democrat candidate who supports Obama's action. There are an awful lot of NRA member even among Democrats who might have been sitting on the fence until Obama used executive action.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Specific:
View attachment 58878

Yawn, guy. Nazis didn't confiscate guns. they invaded and conquered other nations and defeated their armies. Then they people they defeated HAPPILY Handed over their Jews because they didn't like the Jews, either.

Meanwhile, in Germany, if you were a German citizen, you were perfectly able to own as many guns as you wanted. Guns were confiscated in Germany- by the allies AFTER they were defeated.

November 11, 1938 (the day after Kristallnacht) the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons were promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, effectively depriving all Jews living under the Third Reich of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition.[7]

Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".
Gun legislation in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

Im actually happy Oboxo has revived gun control as an issue. Every time Democrats run on it they get their asses handed to them. Dems passed the AWB in 1994. In 1996 the House went GOP for the first time in a generation.

 

[The Rabbi]

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Sorry to poke in here. Actually none of that is any of my business. If they have omitted a crime and gone to jail, they've paid for their crime and it's none of my business. Mental issues are between them and their doctor. Restraining orders are again none of my business. Even if a BC is conducted, none of that should be revealed to me if I'm the seller. A simple yes or no is all I should get.

Poking in is welcome!

This to me falls under the category of the government protecting its citizens. To me, violent criminals, mentally unstable individuals and those who represent enough of a danger to someone to be on the wrong side of a restraining order are a class of citizen who would qualify for greater scrutiny when purchasing a deadly weapon. So we'll disagree there, but I understand your point.

Let me ask you this - is there a level of compromise on the background check issue that you would consider? Examples might be waiting periods or specific personal history issues.
.

For me there is no compromise when it comes to our rights. So no.

But what about the rights of his next door neighbour... Are you happy to let your kids play in the front lawn knowing a person with mental issues and a gun lives could live next door?

Im fine with it. How often does a neighbor go ballistic with no warning and starts shooting children in his front yard? Yeah, never.