The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

 

[westwall]

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.

Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

Justifiable force comes to mind.

 

[westwall]

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.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The fact that gun laws do infringe on our Rights is immaterial to their violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[westwall]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

Justifiable force comes to mind.

A legal fiction promulgated by progressive ideology intent on taking Rights away from the PEOPLE.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.

On the first half of the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what it does. It makes sure that the States has the right to an Organized Militia separate from the Federal Government. Due to the 1916 National Guard Act, that name is no longer State Guard, it's now State SDF or State Defense Force.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The fact that gun laws do infringe on our Rights is immaterial to their violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The question was of the Bill of Rights not of the US Constitution. And I answer with, "I have never heard any court say that something was Unbillofrightable. ".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

Justifiable force comes to mind.

A legal fiction promulgated by progressive ideology intent on taking Rights away from the PEOPLE.

Oh, I see. Brink back the Ottomans. They knew how to handle things.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

Justifiable force comes to mind.

Self defense is a natural right

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

so what. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment which clearly expresses it is about the security of our free States.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

so what. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment which clearly expresses it is about the security of our free States.

right to self-defense predates government

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The bill of rights is part of the constitution the bill of rights are amendments within the constitution

 

[martybegan]

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

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

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.

Felons are not being infringed on. Being convicted in a court of law implies due process, which is the only method rights can be removed from a person.

That's a maybe, but what about age restrictions? Or restrictions on what you can buy? Like not being able to buy nukes... Waiting periods? Background checks? All infringements.

Nukes are not "Arms", they are artillery.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.

On the first half of the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what it does. It makes sure that the States has the right to an Organized Militia separate from the Federal Government. Due to the 1916 National Guard Act, that name is no longer State Guard, it's now State SDF or State Defense Force.

You're not actually taking on this bullshit argument, are you?

Even if true (it's not)(the National Guard is controlled by the U.S. Military and not separate and distinct from the FedGov), you still must reconcile how a right that "shall not be infringed" can be infringed simply by the very government the 2nd intended to limit making some law after the fact. Highly convenient, is it not?

.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo... that is the best law we could think of.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

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.

Felons are not being infringed on. Being convicted in a court of law implies due process, which is the only method rights can be removed from a person.

That's a maybe, but what about age restrictions? Or restrictions on what you can buy? Like not being able to buy nukes... Waiting periods? Background checks? All infringements.

Nukes are not "Arms", they are artillery.

I disagree.

Nukes are not defensive weapons, or weapons that would be used by a citizen force for the defense of a nation. But, making such a carve-out also opens the door for those weapons and equipment that a defensive force SHOULD have, like full-autos and explosive devices.

.

 

[westwall]

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.

Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.

On the first half of the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what it does. It makes sure that the States has the right to an Organized Militia separate from the Federal Government. Due to the 1916 National Guard Act, that name is no longer State Guard, it's now State SDF or State Defense Force.

No, it doesn't. Well regulated is a term that at the time it was written meant "in good working order" or do you claim that there was a law governing the usage of clocks that have that engraved upon them?

 

[westwall]

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.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The fact that gun laws do infringe on our Rights is immaterial to their violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The question was of the Bill of Rights not of the US Constitution. And I answer with, "I have never heard any court say that something was Unbillofrightable. ".

One and the same, dude.

 

[westwall]

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.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

Justifiable force comes to mind.

A legal fiction promulgated by progressive ideology intent on taking Rights away from the PEOPLE.

Oh, I see. Brink back the Ottomans. They knew how to handle things.

Certainly if you are in favor of mass government sponsored murder.

I'm not.