The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[P@triot]

Then you won't have a problem closing it then, since it's no big deal, right?

Actually, no - I wouldn't have a problem closing it. I want guns kept out of the hands of criminals.

Criminals get their guns at Gun Shows to avoid the background checks.

So you are for closing the GUn Show Loophole, then?

Absolutely... There should be NO registration tracking our guns (because that's how a government starts the process of disarming you), however, there should be mandatory background checks for each sale.

 

[P@triot]

"THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT GUARANTEE PUBLIC SAFETY, IT GUARANTEED LIBERTY"

The Epic Gun Control Testimony You?ve Been Waiting For: ?The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety, It Guaranteed Liberty? | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, no - I wouldn't have a problem closing it. I want guns kept out of the hands of criminals.

Criminals get their guns at Gun Shows to avoid the background checks.

So you are for closing the GUn Show Loophole, then?

Absolutely... There should be NO registration tracking our guns (because that's how a government starts the process of disarming you), however, there should be mandatory background checks for each sale.

Guns should be registered, licensed and you can't have one unless you pay the proper insurance against your own negligence, just like you would with a car.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Actually, no - I wouldn't have a problem closing it. I want guns kept out of the hands of criminals.

Criminals get their guns at Gun Shows to avoid the background checks.

So you are for closing the GUn Show Loophole, then?

Absolutely... There should be NO registration tracking our guns (because that's how a government starts the process of disarming you), however, there should be mandatory background checks for each sale.

we already have a tracking system for firearms used in crimes

any "registration" system forward is for nothing more

then a future confiscation program

 

[JoeB131]

Criminals get their guns at Gun Shows to avoid the background checks.

So you are for closing the GUn Show Loophole, then?

Absolutely... There should be NO registration tracking our guns (because that's how a government starts the process of disarming you), however, there should be mandatory background checks for each sale.

we already have a tracking system for firearms used in crimes

any "registration" system forward is for nothing more

then a future confiscation program

And that would be a bad thing, why?

 

[legaleagle_45]

And that would be a bad thing, why?

Because it would violate the 2nd Amend, unless, of course, you intend to repeal the 2nd prior to the confiscation bit.

 

[JoeB131]

And that would be a bad thing, why?

Because it would violate the 2nd Amend, unless, of course, you intend to repeal the 2nd prior to the confiscation bit.

You get a court to declare the Second Amendment ONLY applies to "Well Regulated Militias". If you aren't a member of the militia, you don't get a gun. If you are, your gun stays nice and safe in an armory until you actually need it.

Done and solved.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You get a court to declare the Second Amendment ONLY applies to "Well Regulated Militias". If you aren't a member of the militia, you don't get a gun. If you are, your gun stays nice and safe in an armory until you actually need it.

Done and solved.

Why would you want a court to lie about what the 2nd Amend means, Joe? Besides, you need SCOTUS to do that now, as no other court can overrule the decisions in Heller and McDonald.

 

[JoeB131]

You get a court to declare the Second Amendment ONLY applies to "Well Regulated Militias". If you aren't a member of the militia, you don't get a gun. If you are, your gun stays nice and safe in an armory until you actually need it.

Done and solved.

Why would you want a court to lie about what the 2nd Amend means, Joe? Besides, you need SCOTUS to do that now, as no other court can overrule the decisions in Heller and McDonald.

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

The very first case which found a collective right was Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619 (1905). Previous to that all other courts recognized an individual right. Not one single case and not one single legal scholar held a different view. US v Miller clearly recognized an individual right, but it is quite true that some Courts misinterpreted the meaning of Miller. Most of them simpley misread a ruling in Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) as the ruling in Miller and used the language in Cases for the language in Miller. Cases correctly read Miller, finding that if an arm was useful for military purposes it would be protected for individual use by the 2nd... but then proceeded to formulate a rule in spite of Miller, saying

However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated

However, in Heller, all 9 members of SCOTUS recognized an individual right was protected by the 2nd.

The fact is that the decision in Heller represents the overwhelming majority of legal scholars, including the preeminent liberal legal scholar, Laurence Tribe who's standard text on Constitutional Law used in most Laws Schools in the USA says this:

[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000]

Keep in mind this, Joe...Alan Dershowitz, famed Attorney, former ACLU National Board Member and Harvard Law Professor:

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

 

[Antares]

By all means Joey just make shit up as you go.

Okay.... Please let me know exactly what I, Joe B of Chicago, did PERSONALLY to cause the recession of 2008.

We'll wait.

"You" support elected officials, espouse an ideology and call for a government system that reinforces the false notion that "you" are a perpetual victim of those more successful and that a government based on "your" values is the intervening hand to right the wrongs of "your" victimization.

First, prior to 2008, before my Romney loving boss fired me for having medical issues, I voted for mostly republicans, not these mythical democrats you talk about.

Second, even if this "victimization" thing happened like you think it did, how did that cause the recession?

The Recession happened because the right got EVERYTHING it wanted. They got free trade, they got de-regulation of banks and industry, they got weak enforcement by the SEC and such...

You just aren't very bright. Maybe you need to listen to more Hate Radio and let them do your thinking for you.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, you keep avoiding the discussion.

DIrty little secret. I don't care about guns that much one way or the other. But since the gun nuts are doing the bidding of the plutocrats, I'll laugh when the ATF takes their toys.

By all means Joey just make shit up as you go.

"You" support elected officials, espouse an ideology and call for a government system that reinforces the false notion that "you" are a perpetual victim of those more successful and that a government based on "your" values is the intervening hand to right the wrongs of "your" victimization.

First, prior to 2008, before my Romney loving boss fired me for having medical issues, I voted for mostly republicans, not these mythical democrats you talk about.

Second, even if this "victimization" thing happened like you think it did, how did that cause the recession?

The Recession happened because the right got EVERYTHING it wanted. They got free trade, they got de-regulation of banks and industry, they got weak enforcement by the SEC and such...

You just aren't very bright. Maybe you need to listen to more Hate Radio and let them do your thinking for you.

 

[JoeB131]

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

The very first case which found a collective right was Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619 (1905). Previous to that all other courts recognized an individual right. Not one single case and not one single legal scholar held a different view. US v Miller clearly ....

Okay, without going through this tiresome nonsense, let's concede that the courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean limits on gun ownership- and in fact, they still do even with Heller.

here's the thing about the Supreme Court. It sways with public opinion, and the majority of households in this country don't have guns in them.

Now if the gun industry and the NRA were smart, they'd self-regulate. They'd clean up their act just like industries like Hollywood or the Alcohol industry did when their products created problems. They actually made themselves part of the solution and usually avoided onerous government regulations.

The Gun INdustry isn't doing that. To them, Nancy Lanza is a prime repeat customer, and they want to keep selling her guns, even if they aren't the best thing for her.

 

[PaulS1950]

So if the discussion were about a different right - say the right of religious choice or free speech.
Would you be willing to give up your belief? You would have others to choose from so that would be ok?
Or we take away your right to speak about your government. You would still have plenty of other things to talk about. Would that be ok?

 

[P@triot]

You get a court to declare the Second Amendment ONLY applies to "Well Regulated Militias". If you aren't a member of the militia, you don't get a gun. If you are, your gun stays nice and safe in an armory until you actually need it.

Done and solved.

Why would you want a court to lie about what the 2nd Amend means, Joe? Besides, you need SCOTUS to do that now, as no other court can overrule the decisions in Heller and McDonald.

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

1.) Nothing could be further from the truth (and even Joe knows it)

2.) Effective immediately, all law-abiding citizens are now creating and joining the newly formed American Militia. Now what Joe?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Okay, without going through this tiresome nonsense, let's concede that the courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean limits on gun ownership- and in fact, they still do even with Heller.

here's the thing about the Supreme Court. It sways with public opinion, and the majority of households in this country don't have guns in them.

Now if the gun industry and the NRA were smart, they'd self-regulate. They'd clean up their act just like industries like Hollywood or the Alcohol industry did when their products created problems. They actually made themselves part of the solution and usually avoided onerous government regulations.

The Gun INdustry isn't doing that. To them, Nancy Lanza is a prime repeat customer, and they want to keep selling her guns, even if they aren't the best thing for her.

If you were correct, they would never have overturned Plessy v Ferguson, they would have upheld prohibitions on flag burning and the Nazis would never be able to march in Skokie... and those Westboro Baptist freaks would be in prison.

Sorry Joe. I know what you are saying, but I am an idealist and like to think that SCOTUS will actually uphold the Constituion.

 

[JoeB131]

So if the discussion were about a different right - say the right of religious choice or free speech.
Would you be willing to give up your belief? You would have others to choose from so that would be ok?
Or we take away your right to speak about your government. You would still have plenty of other things to talk about. Would that be ok?

While I will be truly happy the day religion goes away because people grow up and stop believing in sky pixies, a religion does not have the capability to mow down a classroom full of pre-schoolers...

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If you were correct, they would never have overturned Plessy v Ferguson, they would have upheld prohibitions on flag burning and the Nazis would never be able to march in Skokie... and those Westboro Baptist freaks would be in prison.

Sorry Joe. I know what you are saying, but I am an idealist and like to think that SCOTUS will actually uphold the Constituion.

Free Speech is clearly written into the constitution. ANd even then, the government HAS found there to be limits. That's why you see these stories about people being fired because their boss read something they posted on Facebook.

That said... I would expect the Supreme Court to show a little common sense. There is no good reason why someone like Adam Lanza should be able to have access to a military grade weapon, I don't care what the constitution says on the matter.

 

[P@triot]

You get a court to declare the Second Amendment ONLY applies to "Well Regulated Militias". If you aren't a member of the militia, you don't get a gun. If you are, your gun stays nice and safe in an armory until you actually need it.

Done and solved.

Why would you want a court to lie about what the 2nd Amend means, Joe? Besides, you need SCOTUS to do that now, as no other court can overrule the decisions in Heller and McDonald.

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

Hey Joe - I've got some really bad news for you. The 1st Amendment was only intended for the media. It was NEVER intended for "regular people". Therefore, effective immediately and in accordance with your wishes to operate legally within the bounds of the Constitution - you must shut the fuck up and go away.

The 1st Amendment was never intended as a tool to destroy the Constitution or America. I've already proved this in another thread in which you got your ass handed to you (as usual).

Game. Set. Match.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would you want a court to lie about what the 2nd Amend means, Joe? Besides, you need SCOTUS to do that now, as no other court can overrule the decisions in Heller and McDonald.

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

1.) Nothing could be further from the truth (and even Joe knows it)

2.) Effective immediately, all law-abiding citizens are now creating and joining the newly formed American Militia. Now what Joe?

Then we start weeding out the ones we don't want to have guns.

I'd suggest a Roscharh test...

Recruiting Sergeant... "What do you see in this ink Blot?"

Poodle.."Some Ijit getting his brain blown out... communist!"

Sarge..."Errrr... okay and this one?"

Poodle "Some Welfare person getting his brains blowed out!"