The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

When someone refers to the "Bill of Rights", everyone knows they are referring to the first 10 amendments, which are well known as restrictions on the federal government. That is important because if you just call them amendments, then there is no inherent sense of restriction on federal government. Amendments after the first 10 can be enhancements of the federal jurisdiction, and not restrictions. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution.

It took you long enough. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution They had a couple of state reps that were having trouble ratifying in 1791 and wanted all 11 states included. They wrote it up that way to sway them. The Bill of Rights is exactly what you finally admitted. It's the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. And it was Ratified. But it has no legal standing. But it swayed the last 11th state representatives to finally ratify the constitution for their state. The US was already formed and legal without them with 10 states. The Bill of Rights is more a political document.

I just don't use it the place when referring to something that applies to the Constitution of the United States nor do the Courts.

No, the Bill of Rights is just a subset of the Constitution, referring to restriction on federal jurisdiction.
That is a valid reference, and is what the SCOTUS often refers to.

You are just playing with words now. Have it your way.

It is important words, because MOST of the Constitution tells what the federal government CAN do.
The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendment are special because they say what the federal government CAN NOT do.
Very important subsection.

Labeling them the "Bill of Rights" indicates legislative intent. That, coupled with the nature of each of the first 10 amendments, should be sufficient to decipher intent, if such is even needed.

I have no idea what the concern is with the Bill of Rights. They were clearly intended to prevent both State governments and the Federal Government from exercising certain powers.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And they are the most troublesome rifle I have ever dealt with, except that they do not require head spacing.

That is the most convenient part of the AR system. The head spacing issues (lack thereof) make them easy for layfolk like me to build. (not that I ever have, wink-wink, nudge-nudge).

.

 

[captkaos]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

My car wouldn't start. So I replaced the radio, checked the air in the tires, and washed it. I knew it wouldn't fix my car. I knew it wouldn't address the problem.

But I had to do something.

Oh, OP's solution is not window dressing. It would work because it actually DOES address the problem. At least the weapon part. People urging us to also address the motivation of the shooters are also right. It is not just one solution or the other. It is both, and more besides.

Yeah screw the fact that 99.999% of gun owners will NEVER commit murder.

I wonder what crimes I can hold you accountable for simply because you own an object some piece of shit criminal uses to commit a crime

10,000 people a year do commit murder with guns. Let's stop using meaningless percentages that make those 10,000 people seem irrelevant.
10,000 people are murdered every year with guns. It is not 10,000 people one time in this country. It is every year. From 2009 to 2019, that is 100,000 people murdered with guns.
How many do there have to be before it is important to you?

Well over 100 million people who own guns do not and will not ever commit murder with any weapon. You want to lump everyone in with the fucking murderers

Facts are facts and the fact is you are so afraid that you are seeking a level of safety that is in all reality unattainable.

And I have said we need to enforce the laws we have that actually target the people responsible for crimes.

70% of murders take place in very well defines areas of the country and most of those murders are committed by people who are already legally prohibited from possessing any firearms.

Your answer to that is to tell people who have dome everything in accordance with the law and who are responsible in their ownership of firearms that they ar o better than the fucking criminals who are bared from legally owning guns.

And you seem to forget that humans beings have murdered other human beings since we have been on the planet to the tune of hundreds of millions of people.

You are never going to stop that.

And that humans are the most violent and most murderous animal that has ever existed is proof that you should be prepared to protect yourself from other human beings.

You simply have no right, no authority , no moral position that can justify treating people who will NEVER commit murder as if they are guilty of that most heinous of crimes

Laws are made to bring some control to the uncontrollable human instinct to kill. The problem is the people most likely to kill you don't care about words on a piece of paper. They do care about the .45 in their face when they come up the stairs or through the door.... "If only" for a moment!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

In Vietnam (I was one country over) the Air Force used the AR-15 Model 601. That's another way of saying M-16. We didn't have jamming problems. We didn't use the same powder or reloads that the Army used. We bought our ammo already loaded from the factories. We also included the cleaning kit (the AR still has the cleaning kit orfice) with every AR. We taught how to clean the weapon and emphasize to keep it clean. And one country over, we were just as dirty and buy as the ARmy was in Vietnam. We were busy with our own private war that the Army and Marines weren't invite to due to political reasons.

I can tell that you are going by what you read in certain sections on the Net. Stop that. Experience life (or death) on your own. And only then can you have the steel to make any determination. Until you have shlept a M-14 and a M-16 around for 24 yours a day and 3 weeks time can you figure out why the M-16 is superior. And the first time you get into a firefight at various ranges you will figure out why the 556 ain't so bad afterall over the 9mm.

There is no question the AR jammed a lot. The gas tube is long and bent, with a right angle at the barrel port, so can not be cleaned. The 8 lugs on the bolt are too many, so causes jams when you are in swamps. I have heard there was talc contaminating the early powder batches, but it is still a weak design. It also does not work in Arctic temperatures.
And while you are right to complain about the weight of an M-14 in comparison, more modern rifles are lighter and better than both. We also should have an urban warfare machine pistol, and a longer range rifle. The M-16 is bad because they use it as one size fits all. It is a bad compromise. A lower velocity with more mass would be do both better.

And is this from your own personal experience in combat?

I have never used an AR in combat, but I buy, sell, build, fix, etc., quite a few.
And they are the most troublesome rifle I have ever dealt with, except that they do not require head spacing.
That is the only thing I like about them.
The barrel and receiver is one piece.
So you can't and don't need to adjust the barrel to the receiver.

I have. And I have spent time with the M-14 as well. Shlep a rifle around for 24/7 for 3 weeks and the that changed my tune on the M-14 real fast. The AR family has proven to be the best in combat there is. The only drawback might be the caliber and the 6.8spc is being seriously considered. Do you know how many billions of dollars it would take to completely replace the Ar series in the Military? How many years it would take to train people to another system of rifle? And for what? The AR series does the job good enough. And in war, good enough is good enough. WWII was won with good enough weapons over quality. We could have had a whole fleet of P-80 Shooting Stars but the P-51, P-38 and P-47 was good enough. There were better rifles than the M-1 but the M-1 was good enough. We could have had the B-45 and the B-36 but the B-29, B-17 and B-24 was good enough. As early as 1944, the US could have force into service a lot of things and made the same mistakes Germany did but we went with good enough and allowed the followon weapon systems to mature at a more healthy rate. In war, Good Enough is Good enough.

 

[Taz]

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Age restrictions or waiting periods, both infringements. As is not being able to buy all kinds of military grade weapons and bombs...

You're making the case for it. Not me.

Do you want to leave well-enough alone, or do you want us to start being strict about things?

.

You should stop being a hypocrite.

And get off that girly bike.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

In Vietnam (I was one country over) the Air Force used the AR-15 Model 601. That's another way of saying M-16. We didn't have jamming problems. We didn't use the same powder or reloads that the Army used. We bought our ammo already loaded from the factories. We also included the cleaning kit (the AR still has the cleaning kit orfice) with every AR. We taught how to clean the weapon and emphasize to keep it clean. And one country over, we were just as dirty and buy as the ARmy was in Vietnam. We were busy with our own private war that the Army and Marines weren't invite to due to political reasons.

I can tell that you are going by what you read in certain sections on the Net. Stop that. Experience life (or death) on your own. And only then can you have the steel to make any determination. Until you have shlept a M-14 and a M-16 around for 24 yours a day and 3 weeks time can you figure out why the M-16 is superior. And the first time you get into a firefight at various ranges you will figure out why the 556 ain't so bad afterall over the 9mm.

There is no question the AR jammed a lot. The gas tube is long and bent, with a right angle at the barrel port, so can not be cleaned. The 8 lugs on the bolt are too many, so causes jams when you are in swamps. I have heard there was talc contaminating the early powder batches, but it is still a weak design. It also does not work in Arctic temperatures.
And while you are right to complain about the weight of an M-14 in comparison, more modern rifles are lighter and better than both. We also should have an urban warfare machine pistol, and a longer range rifle. The M-16 is bad because they use it as one size fits all. It is a bad compromise. A lower velocity with more mass would be do both better.

And is this from your own personal experience in combat?

I have never used an AR in combat, but I buy, sell, build, fix, etc., quite a few.
And they are the most troublesome rifle I have ever dealt with, except that they do not require head spacing.
That is the only thing I like about them.
The barrel and receiver is one piece.
So you can't and don't need to adjust the barrel to the receiver.

I have. And I have spent time with the M-14 as well. Shlep a rifle around for 24/7 for 3 weeks and the that changed my tune on the M-14 real fast. The AR family has proven to be the best in combat there is. The only drawback might be the caliber and the 6.8spc is being seriously considered. Do you know how many billions of dollars it would take to completely replace the Ar series in the Military? How many years it would take to train people to another system of rifle? And for what? The AR series does the job good enough. And in war, good enough is good enough. WWII was won with good enough weapons over quality. We could have had a whole fleet of P-80 Shooting Stars but the P-51, P-38 and P-47 was good enough. There were better rifles than the M-1 but the M-1 was good enough. We could have had the B-45 and the B-36 but the B-29, B-17 and B-24 was good enough. As early as 1944, the US could have force into service a lot of things and made the same mistakes Germany did but we went with good enough and allowed the followon weapon systems to mature at a more healthy rate. In war, Good Enough is Good enough.

I don't disagree. The whole purpose for having the AR system was the light weight of the 5.56 round. It was not designed for much else but being light weight. Some argue that it was designed to be more nonlethal, but I have not seen anything that supports that argument.

Another example is the grease gun (M3), used instead of the very expensive Tommy gun. But, that is also evidence of the need for a pistol caliber weapon for city combat. The concept of the "assault rifle" or the Sturmgewehr was to have mid-sized rounds (see the 7.9mm Kurz) that could be fired semi- or full-auto.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Age restrictions or waiting periods, both infringements. As is not being able to buy all kinds of military grade weapons and bombs...

You're making the case for it. Not me.

Do you want to leave well-enough alone, or do you want us to start being strict about things?

.

You should stop being a hypocrite.

And get off that girly bike.

Where am I being a hypocrite? If you can point to one single bit of hypocrisy from me on ANY topic, I will seriously consider it.

And, get off...your couch.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Age restrictions or waiting periods, both infringements. As is not being able to buy all kinds of military grade weapons and bombs...

You're making the case for it. Not me.

Do you want to leave well-enough alone, or do you want us to start being strict about things?

.

You should stop being a hypocrite.

And get off that girly bike.

Should I also give up knitting?

 

[Taz]

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Age restrictions or waiting periods, both infringements. As is not being able to buy all kinds of military grade weapons and bombs...

You're making the case for it. Not me.

Do you want to leave well-enough alone, or do you want us to start being strict about things?

.

You should stop being a hypocrite.

And get off that girly bike.

Where am I being a hypocrite? If you can point to one single bit of hypocrisy from me on ANY topic, I will seriously consider it.

And, get off...your couch.

.

You think wearing gay clothes and riding a skinny bike while WEARING A HELMET!!!! ... makes you a man. That's kinda like being a hypocrite, isn't it?

 

[Taz]

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Age restrictions or waiting periods, both infringements. As is not being able to buy all kinds of military grade weapons and bombs...

You're making the case for it. Not me.

Do you want to leave well-enough alone, or do you want us to start being strict about things?

.

You should stop being a hypocrite.

And get off that girly bike.

Should I also give up knitting?

Not if you're knitting your bf a ball warmer for his bike. He'll need it.

 

[Siete]

meanwhile, back at the asylum -

McConnell said he and Trump discussed various ideas on the call, including background checks and the so-called “red flag” laws that allow authorities to seize firearms from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.

“Background checks and red flags will probably lead the discussion,” McConnell told Louisville’s WHAS-AM. He noted “there’s a lot of support” publicly for background checks. “Those are two items that for sure will be front and center as we see what we can come together on and pass.”

 

[basquebromance]

Social media can be a great unifier, but it can also be a divisive force. We need to minimize online incitements to violence while continuing to protect users' First Amendment rights. It might not be easy, but it's necessary.

 

[rjs330]

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

That's not true. Defendants have used the Amendments as a defense against the prosecution violating their rights. The rights specifically outlin d in the Amendments. They have won many of those cases and had charges dropped specifically because the state was found to have violated those rights. If the rights had no legal standing then the defendant would have not been able to use them and the courts would not have used them to determine that the rights were violated.

Did they say that it was "Unconstitutional" or was it "Unbillofrightable" in the rulings? You keep squirming around that. Which is it?

So you agree that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. You agree with SCOTUS. Then we have no issue. It seems you are just parsing words. I don't understand why.

 

[Dick Foster]

Black people should be disqualified from having guns.

Sorry, but DNA testing has shown that everyone actually is Black.
Whites are a recessive branch of Blacks that developed in Africa less than 100,000 years ago.
You can't really get any evolution in just 100,000 years.
All you can do is bring out old existing recessives, with inbreeding.

Are you saying that Hillbilly Dating caused White People? I thought it only caused the loss of teeth and the ability to play the banjo

The banjo actually began life in the hands of black slaves from Africa. Just so you know.

 

[Taz]

Black people should be disqualified from having guns.

Sorry, but DNA testing has shown that everyone actually is Black.
Whites are a recessive branch of Blacks that developed in Africa less than 100,000 years ago.
You can't really get any evolution in just 100,000 years.
All you can do is bring out old existing recessives, with inbreeding.

Are you saying that Hillbilly Dating caused White People? I thought it only caused the loss of teeth and the ability to play the banjo

The banjo actually began life in the hands of black slaves from Africa. Just so you know.

Like this?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights are not part of the Constitution? In other words slavery can still be legal? Or that we have no right to freedom of speech? Or that we have no constitutional right against unlawful search and siezure or right to an attorney or against self incrimination?

OR are you trying to say we shouldn't refer to the amendments as the bill of Rights and should just refer to them as "the Constitution"?

Cause the courts all over the place including SCOTUS has used the amendments as constitutional authority to determine whether or not something like a search and seizure is constitutional.

They don't refer to the Bill of Rights in rulings. They refer to the Constitution. There is no legal standing from the Bill of Rights since it's actually a copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. You can try and twist this all you want but I have NEVER heard of any court ruling that something was "UnBillofrightable".

Dude, what part of "the bill of rights is part of the constitution" don't you get?

 

[Dick Foster]

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

When someone refers to the "Bill of Rights", everyone knows they are referring to the first 10 amendments, which are well known as restrictions on the federal government. That is important because if you just call them amendments, then there is no inherent sense of restriction on federal government. Amendments after the first 10 can be enhancements of the federal jurisdiction, and not restrictions. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution.

It took you long enough. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution They had a couple of state reps that were having trouble ratifying in 1791 and wanted all 11 states included. They wrote it up that way to sway them. The Bill of Rights is exactly what you finally admitted. It's the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. And it was Ratified. But it has no legal standing. But it swayed the last 11th state representatives to finally ratify the constitution for their state. The US was already formed and legal without them with 10 states. The Bill of Rights is more a political document.

I just don't use it the place when referring to something that applies to the Constitution of the United States nor do the Courts.

The constitution is not just a political document, it is the supreme law of our land. It stands over and over rules over all including the supreme court, congress, the administration and every state, every locality and every one of their laws. That is why every political office holder, every peace officer everywhere in this nation, every officer of every court and even every single member of the military must swear allegiance to it and recognize it as the supreme law of the land. Not the president, not the congress or the supreme court but the constitution.

 

[Dick Foster]

Black people should be disqualified from having guns.

Sorry, but DNA testing has shown that everyone actually is Black.
Whites are a recessive branch of Blacks that developed in Africa less than 100,000 years ago.
You can't really get any evolution in just 100,000 years.
All you can do is bring out old existing recessives, with inbreeding.

Are you saying that Hillbilly Dating caused White People? I thought it only caused the loss of teeth and the ability to play the banjo

The banjo actually began life in the hands of black slaves from Africa. Just so you know.

Like this?
View attachment 274059

Yep.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Yes, now that we have McDonald vs Chicago firmly incorporating defense as an individual right, then convicted felons need to be re-examined. They do have the individual right of self defense.

That is a state decision.

Maybe, but it could also be a question the SCOTUS could over rule the states on. Not that that would be likely though.

The Supreme Court has avoided that question like the plague for good reason. it's not the Feds job. They leave it up to the lower courts and the lower governments where it belongs.

It is the SCOTUS's job to defend individual rights from infringement by states. The 14th amendment started that up.
But I agree they will try to avoid this.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

 

[westwall]

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Shall not be infringed is pretty self explanatory.