Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[PaintMyHouse]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

 

[easyt65]

Liberals are right - some people should NOT be allowed to have or have access to a gun.

Background checks currently being conducted on potential / should-be gun owners seems to work better that Obama's background check system that recently allowed to a terrorist to have a Green card, enter the country, and kill 12 Americans. It does a good job.

Criminals, mentally ill, and politicians should not have access to firearms. For example, since Obama has provided Mexican Drug Cartels and terrorists with weapons, he and his administration should not have access to weapons unless under proper adult supervision.

So Liberals do have some good ideas, and in a limited constrained application, they are definitely right here.

 

[Auld Phart]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.

The 2nd amendment says in modern language, that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.

Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?

Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?

The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.

The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.

But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.

If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.

-----------------------------------------------

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

Business Insider
By Erin Fuchs
Feb. 29, 2016
20 hours ago

The case that spurred Thomas' torrent of questions centered on whether a "reckless" domestic-assault conviction counts as a federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that would carry with it a lifetime firearm ban. Thirty-four states have "reckless" assault laws that hold people accountable for carelessness that injures somebody else even when they don't necessarily intend harm, according to SCOTUSBlog.

Thomas' line of questioning seemed to suggest that he didn't favor gun bans for misdemeanor domestic-violence offenders and thought such bans could be a slippery slope leading to the denial of other constitutional rights for people convicted of misdemeanors.

"Can you give me a — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor question suspends a constitutional right?" Thomas asked Eisenstein, according to the court transcript.

The usually silent justice may have spoken up because neither side had addressed this question in the briefs they filed, according to Winkler.

"Thomas's question was an important one. Why is the right to bear arms is the only right that people lose for a misdemeanor?" Winkler asked in his email, before going ahead and answering the question himself.

"The answer is recidivism. Even though some domestic violence is only a misdemeanor, it shows a propensity to engage in violence," Winkler added. "Violent people shouldn't have access to guns."

It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

A well regulated militia being necessary......

the right of the PEOPLE, (Not militia), to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[g5000]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

So no swimming pools or Muslims then. By your own logic.

 

[Dhara]

Blah, blah, blah guns.

 

[Contumacious]

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction.

Actually, the Constitution does say you can remove someone's rights if they are bad people. It's called "due process".

Read the Constitution sometime, and see for yourself.

The Constitution (1787) criminalized

2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever;

So the Constitution (1787-1935) Constitutionally defined bad people - of course nowadays the bastards can UNconstitutionally criminalize anything .


.

 

[daws101]

false! the message is that there was a need to have a militia .

Then why didn't it give the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, instead of the people?

a militia is kinda of useless with out people , don't ya think?

Military is useless without people, huh
Our military overwhelmingly backs the second amendment

non sequitur.

It's the truth, most of my customers are military folk by a long-shot

still a non sequitur .
since you don't have a clue to what that means :
non se·qui·tur
[ˌnän ˈsekwədər]

NOUN

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

hope that makes it clearer.

 

[bripat9643]

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

bitch please! the branch Davidians brought that on themselves
it does showcase the point that armed citizens do stupid things

Horseshit. How did they do that, by minding their own business? What did the women and children do to deserve being incinerated?

Anyone who defends the Waco holocaust is a scumbag.

they were not minding their own business.. At Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, agents of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) launch a raid against the Branch Davidian compound as part of an investigation into illegal possession of firearms and explosives by the Christian cult.
epic fail

In other words, they were minding their own business. No evidence was ever produced that the Davidians were doing either.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

So no swimming pools or Muslims then. By your own logic.

Guns are weapons, swimming pools and Muslims are not. Apples and bicycles...

 

[daws101]

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

yes it is . the whole theme of this thread is gun control , you're just to chicken shit or ignorant to admit it.

The subthread started by Manchester was whether "the argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism." He brought the issue up, and then he tried to change the subject.

false and a dodge.

Anyone following the thread can see that it's true. You included the evidence in your post.

Bottom line: you're a lying douche bag.

false accusation # 5

 

[Rustic]

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.

your solution is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm looks like you're doing something, but even even a fourth-grader can tell that you're doing nothing for anybody

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

No nail guns, few nail gun accidents, murders, or suicides by nail gun...

How do you explain in rural areas where guns out number people many, many times - such as western South Dakota murderers by firearms are next to nonexistent...
In fact in this area more people die(mostly drunk Indians) by drowning.

Low crime, but plenty of suicides. It's low crime where I am as well, and we also have lots of guns around.

TOP 15 CAUSES OF DEATH SOUTH DAKOTA

High crime areas also have lots of guns around. And so ends that derailed train of thought.

Most All the deaths around here are caused by socialism, you know the nanny state.

 

[bripat9643]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

After the Arabs exterminate the Israelis, right?

 

[Rustic]

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.

your solution is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm looks like you're doing something, but even even a fourth-grader can tell that you're doing nothing for anybody

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

No nail guns, few nail gun accidents, murders, or suicides by nail gun...

How do you explain in rural areas where guns out number people many, many times - such as western South Dakota murderers by firearms are next to nonexistent...
In fact in this area more people die(mostly drunk Indians) by drowning.

Low crime, but plenty of suicides. It's low crime where I am as well, and we also have lots of guns around.

TOP 15 CAUSES OF DEATH SOUTH DAKOTA

High crime areas also have lots of guns around. And so ends that derailed train of thought.

The difference is legal firearms... Lol

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't the question under discussion.

yes it is . the whole theme of this thread is gun control , you're just to chicken shit or ignorant to admit it.

The subthread started by Manchester was whether "the argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism." He brought the issue up, and then he tried to change the subject.

false and a dodge.

Anyone following the thread can see that it's true. You included the evidence in your post.

Bottom line: you're a lying douche bag.

false accusation # 5

What does "# 5" refer to?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

bitch please! the branch Davidians brought that on themselves
it does showcase the point that armed citizens do stupid things

Horseshit. How did they do that, by minding their own business? What did the women and children do to deserve being incinerated?

Anyone who defends the Waco holocaust is a scumbag.

they were not minding their own business.. At Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, agents of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) launch a raid against the Branch Davidian compound as part of an investigation into illegal possession of firearms and explosives by the Christian cult.
epic fail

In other words, they were minding their own business. No evidence was ever produced that the Davidians were doing either.

All the evidence needed was when they opened fire on Federal Agents. Not something a "church" would ever do, but suicidal gun runners would.

 

[Rustic]

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

So no swimming pools or Muslims then. By your own logic.

Guns are weapons, swimming pools and Muslims are not. Apples and bicycles...

Muslims are the greatest weapon Islam has, they are expendable

 

[Rustic]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

And a cherry on top

 

[g5000]

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction.

Actually, the Constitution does say you can remove someone's rights if they are bad people. It's called "due process".

Read the Constitution sometime, and see for yourself.

The Constitution (1787) criminalized

2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever;

So the Constitution (1787-1935) Constitutionally defined bad people - of course nowadays the bastards can UNconstitutionally criminalize anything .


.

What part of the Fifth Amendment, which I quoted in full, do you not understand? It clearly states the government can deprive you of life, liberty, and property with due cause.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.

your solution is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm looks like you're doing something, but even even a fourth-grader can tell that you're doing nothing for anybody

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

No nail guns, few nail gun accidents, murders, or suicides by nail gun...

How do you explain in rural areas where guns out number people many, many times - such as western South Dakota murderers by firearms are next to nonexistent...
In fact in this area more people die(mostly drunk Indians) by drowning.

Low crime, but plenty of suicides. It's low crime where I am as well, and we also have lots of guns around.

TOP 15 CAUSES OF DEATH SOUTH DAKOTA

High crime areas also have lots of guns around. And so ends that derailed train of thought.

The difference is legal firearms... Lol

That makes no difference at all. Are guns in the hands of someone not allowed to own them more likely to fire by themselves?

 

[bripat9643]

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

bitch please! the branch Davidians brought that on themselves
it does showcase the point that armed citizens do stupid things

Horseshit. How did they do that, by minding their own business? What did the women and children do to deserve being incinerated?

Anyone who defends the Waco holocaust is a scumbag.

they were not minding their own business.. At Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, agents of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) launch a raid against the Branch Davidian compound as part of an investigation into illegal possession of firearms and explosives by the Christian cult.
epic fail

In other words, they were minding their own business. No evidence was ever produced that the Davidians were doing either.

All the evidence needed was when they opened fire on Federal Agents. Not something a "church" would ever do, but suicidal gun runners would.

They didn't open fire on federal agents. All the evidence shows that the federal agents opened fire on them.