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

[Little-Acorn]

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Exactly.

Free people do not lose their right to defend their lives merely because they committed a crime - specially , where a corrupt government has seen fit to criminalize everything.


.

 

[daws101]

The court ruled against the FBI. They weren't allowed to add another 25 years because they had to prove in a separate trial that the defendant had used a machine gun. They didn't even bother to produce any evidence to that effect in the trial.

your point?

Bottom line: no one was ever convicted of using automatic weapons at waco.

Progressives don't know what so called "automatic weapons" are...
They just believe whatever they see in the movies.

Do you enjoy being wrong all the time?

Tell us the difference between a sporting weapon and a military grade weapon, more importantly show us??

You first!

 

[daws101]

man chokes on food, dies ...

and?

Political correctness Blames everybody but the person that choked and died

False!

Do you like appeasing??

Never appeased anyone in my life .
Anymore dumbass questions?

 

[Conservative65]

You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.

You do know that to change it involves a process don't you?

None of mine are in a locked box. They are easily accessible.

I have gunS because I have the right to own them. I use them legally and have never done anything with any of them against the law. Bottom line is there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.

 

[daws101]

Yes, they did. And some of the surviving Davidians were convicted for possessing and using them.

Castillo v. United States

The Supreme Court ruled against the FBI in that case, numskull.

They did not refute the Davidians had "machine guns". This was established at trial.

Because the law added an extra 25 years if you used a "machine gun" during a crime, the Supreme Court considered that an additional crime which had to be proven to the jury, in addition to the crime itself.

The judge sentenced them to the mandatory minimum of 30 years after they were convicted of the crime by the jury, adding that extra 25 because they had used machine guns. The Supremes said that was not allowed since the clause in the law made the "machine guns" a separate crime for which they had to also be found guilty by the jury.

In other words, Castillo got off on a technicality.

The court ruled against the FBI. They weren't allowed to add another 25 years because they had to prove in a separate trial that the defendant had used a machine gun. They didn't even bother to produce any evidence to that effect in the trial.

They did. But they failed to make it a separate charge at the trial.

Read the link I provided. It is indisputable they had fully automatic weapons.

Nope. They never attempted to prove that automatic weapons were used. The simply presented it as a fact.

Hey asshole the reason they presented it as fact because it was .
Since it had already been established as fact proving it was unessarry.

 

[daws101]

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.

The longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit.

 

[daws101]

You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.

You do know that to change it involves a process don't you?

None of mine are in a locked box. They are easily accessible.

I have gunS because I have the right to own them. I use them legally and have never done anything with any of them against the law. Bottom line is there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.

Yes there is.
Proclaiming there is nothing you can do to stop me are famous last words.

 

[Conservative65]

You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.

You do know that to change it involves a process don't you?

None of mine are in a locked box. They are easily accessible.

I have gunS because I have the right to own them. I use them legally and have never done anything with any of them against the law. Bottom line is there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.

Yes there is.
Proclaiming there is nothing you can do to stop me are famous last words.

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

 

[bripat9643]

The Supreme Court ruled against the FBI in that case, numskull.

They did not refute the Davidians had "machine guns". This was established at trial.

Because the law added an extra 25 years if you used a "machine gun" during a crime, the Supreme Court considered that an additional crime which had to be proven to the jury, in addition to the crime itself.

The judge sentenced them to the mandatory minimum of 30 years after they were convicted of the crime by the jury, adding that extra 25 because they had used machine guns. The Supremes said that was not allowed since the clause in the law made the "machine guns" a separate crime for which they had to also be found guilty by the jury.

In other words, Castillo got off on a technicality.

The court ruled against the FBI. They weren't allowed to add another 25 years because they had to prove in a separate trial that the defendant had used a machine gun. They didn't even bother to produce any evidence to that effect in the trial.

They did. But they failed to make it a separate charge at the trial.

Read the link I provided. It is indisputable they had fully automatic weapons.

Nope. They never attempted to prove that automatic weapons were used. The simply presented it as a fact.

Hey asshole the reason they presented it as fact because it was .
Since it had already been established as fact proving it was unessarry.

In a court of law you have to prove it. You don't get to just assume the central issue of the case. It was never "established" by anything other than the FBI's say-so.

Douche nozzle.

 

[daws101]

You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.

You do know that to change it involves a process don't you?

None of mine are in a locked box. They are easily accessible.

I have gunS because I have the right to own them. I use them legally and have never done anything with any of them against the law. Bottom line is there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.

Yes there is.
Proclaiming there is nothing you can do to stop me are famous last words.

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

That would spoil all the fun.

 

[Conservative65]

You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.

You do know that to change it involves a process don't you?

None of mine are in a locked box. They are easily accessible.

I have gunS because I have the right to own them. I use them legally and have never done anything with any of them against the law. Bottom line is there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.

Yes there is.
Proclaiming there is nothing you can do to stop me are famous last words.

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

 

[daws101]

They did not refute the Davidians had "machine guns". This was established at trial.

Because the law added an extra 25 years if you used a "machine gun" during a crime, the Supreme Court considered that an additional crime which had to be proven to the jury, in addition to the crime itself.

The judge sentenced them to the mandatory minimum of 30 years after they were convicted of the crime by the jury, adding that extra 25 because they had used machine guns. The Supremes said that was not allowed since the clause in the law made the "machine guns" a separate crime for which they had to also be found guilty by the jury.

In other words, Castillo got off on a technicality.

The court ruled against the FBI. They weren't allowed to add another 25 years because they had to prove in a separate trial that the defendant had used a machine gun. They didn't even bother to produce any evidence to that effect in the trial.

They did. But they failed to make it a separate charge at the trial.

Read the link I provided. It is indisputable they had fully automatic weapons.

Nope. They never attempted to prove that automatic weapons were used. The simply presented it as a fact.

Hey asshole the reason they presented it as fact because it was .
Since it had already been established as fact proving it was unessarry.

In a court of law you have to prove it. You don't get to just assume the central issue of the case. It was never "established" by anything other than the FBI's say-so.

Douche nozzle.

You really can't read can you .
There was no legal or Logical to establish it.
The weapons themselves had already done that.
Also shit for brains the FBI has the authority. It's on the defense to prove if the FBI wrong.

 

[daws101]

You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.

You do know that to change it involves a process don't you?

None of mine are in a locked box. They are easily accessible.

I have gunS because I have the right to own them. I use them legally and have never done anything with any of them against the law. Bottom line is there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.

Yes there is.
Proclaiming there is nothing you can do to stop me are famous last words.

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

 

[bripat9643]

The court ruled against the FBI. They weren't allowed to add another 25 years because they had to prove in a separate trial that the defendant had used a machine gun. They didn't even bother to produce any evidence to that effect in the trial.

They did. But they failed to make it a separate charge at the trial.

Read the link I provided. It is indisputable they had fully automatic weapons.

Nope. They never attempted to prove that automatic weapons were used. The simply presented it as a fact.

Hey asshole the reason they presented it as fact because it was .
Since it had already been established as fact proving it was unessarry.

In a court of law you have to prove it. You don't get to just assume the central issue of the case. It was never "established" by anything other than the FBI's say-so.

Douche nozzle.

You really can't read can you .
There was no legal or Logical to establish it.
The weapons themselves had already done that.
Also shit for brains the FBI has the authority. It's on the defense to prove if the FBI wrong.

No one has any "authority" in a court of law. The defense wasn't able to examine the weapons, so anything the FBI said about them proves exactly nothing.

You're an idiot.

 

[Conservative65]

You do know that to change it involves a process don't you?

None of mine are in a locked box. They are easily accessible.

I have gunS because I have the right to own them. I use them legally and have never done anything with any of them against the law. Bottom line is there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.

Yes there is.
Proclaiming there is nothing you can do to stop me are famous last words.

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

 

[daws101]

They did. But they failed to make it a separate charge at the trial.

Read the link I provided. It is indisputable they had fully automatic weapons.

Nope. They never attempted to prove that automatic weapons were used. The simply presented it as a fact.

Hey asshole the reason they presented it as fact because it was .
Since it had already been established as fact proving it was unessarry.

In a court of law you have to prove it. You don't get to just assume the central issue of the case. It was never "established" by anything other than the FBI's say-so.

Douche nozzle.

You really can't read can you .
There was no legal or Logical to establish it.
The weapons themselves had already done that.
Also shit for brains the FBI has the authority. It's on the defense to prove if the FBI wrong.

No one has any "authority" in a court of law. The defense wasn't able to examine the weapons, so anything the FBI said about them proves exactly nothing.

You're an idiot.

False ! the prosecution and the judge have authority then the jury gets it.
If the defense chose not to examine the weapons that's on them to.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. They never attempted to prove that automatic weapons were used. The simply presented it as a fact.

Hey asshole the reason they presented it as fact because it was .
Since it had already been established as fact proving it was unessarry.

In a court of law you have to prove it. You don't get to just assume the central issue of the case. It was never "established" by anything other than the FBI's say-so.

Douche nozzle.

You really can't read can you .
There was no legal or Logical to establish it.
The weapons themselves had already done that.
Also shit for brains the FBI has the authority. It's on the defense to prove if the FBI wrong.

No one has any "authority" in a court of law. The defense wasn't able to examine the weapons, so anything the FBI said about them proves exactly nothing.

You're an idiot.

False ! the prosecution and the judge have authority then the jury gets it.
If the defense chose not to examine the weapons that's on them to.

You think the prosecution determines what the facts are? You'e a moron in addition to being a douche nozzle.

 

[daws101]

Yes there is.
Proclaiming there is nothing you can do to stop me are famous last words.

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

 

[bripat9643]

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

Leftwingers who shoot up schools and movie theaters are the ones who give gun owners a bad name.