Which of Your Rights Will They Go After....

[sparky]

The far left does not want you to have any rights, so they can make up laws as they go along.

To them the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper!

~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both parties are attacking our rights by creating and taking advantage of different kinds of outrage. I hope people notice before it's too late.

Nice to see the hot air contingent checking in.

You words mean less than nothing.
Get off your lazy duff and put some effort into it.....with supporting documentation.

Anybody that's been paying attention the last 20 years knows my words are true. You're a pure bred partisan hack if you think the Republicans are not guilty of attacking our rights too.

While you are busy worry about Republicans taking away your rights, Democrats are actively taking away your rights.

They don't care.

For most Democrat voters, it's simply one more spectator sport....and they don't care whether they cheat or not, as long as their team wins.

Bodes ill for America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....first.

1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review

....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.


Nay, nay......not so.




2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech





Again???

"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."


Here....Fredo Cuomo:



Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.





For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."

There is only speech.

And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.

First the Communists are going after the second amendment, then second they will go after the first.

After the Communists disarm us, they sure the fuck won't let us criticize them. Check out any college campus for a quick lesson in what the Marxist left thinks about freedom of speech. What place in America has LESS tolerance for intellectual curiosity and reasoned debate than the Marxist institutions of group think that are the putrid rotting corpse of old school brick and mortar higher education? Harvard once had whites only drinking fountains, now they have blacks only safe spaces. Same racism, different victims.

We all must remember that the democrats are not the opposition, they are the enemy. They don't disagree with us, they hate us. They don't want to govern differently, they want to kill us. They don't want to try a different approach, they want to burn this nation to the ground and piss on the ashes of the once free and proud people.

"First the Communists are going after the second amendment, then second they will go after the first."

The nano second between the two events may not be enough to determine which of us is correct.

 

[Humorme]

Under Heller, state and local governments can outlaw any kind of gun or accessory. Good bye Second Amendment. Your thinking is wrong on this.

There is a constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. So, the states outlawing firearms do not "grandfather" them in. They're history. THAT is what the issue is with bump stocks.

If existing bump stocks aren't grandfathered in, neither will your AR 15 WHEN they are outlawed.

You're missing a very important fact here... a bump stock is NOT A GUN, it is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment.

My AK-47 isn't going anywhere.

Irrelevant. The Heller decision gave states the ability to ban the guns.... SEPARATE ISSUE. And, yes, after discussing it over with the DOJ a couple of days ago, the AG CAN determine a weapon to be illegal.

But, even that is a SEPARATE issue.

The issue is: How can any branch of government pass an ex post facto law? If anything is legal when you buy it, how does the AG (or anyone else) get the power to over-rule the prohibition against ex post facto laws (Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution)?

An ex post facto law is a law that makes a legal act illegal retroactively.

For example, you drive down a road at 55 mph, the posted speed limit on Monday. On Tuesday they put up a new sign making the new speed limit 45 and a cop that clocked you on Monday, writes you a ticket on Tuesday for what you did on Monday. That is an ex post facto law.

The bump stocks bought today should remain legal. IF they are not, whether it's a gun or stove, under the cited principle, ex post facto prohibitions are GONE.

Well... again... you're mixing up the laws here, and saying irrelevant is... well... irrelevant.

You're talking about the banning of bump stocks which are not guns, they have no constitutional protection... none. Banning bump stocks has about the same relevance as banning sharp metal sucking nips on baby feeding bottles. They're not protected by the constitution either.

When you say "separate issue," you're right, because you're talking about something that is not protected by the constitution like guns are.

Your point is irrelevant. The Attorney General is NOT the part of the legislative branch of government. If the government wants to outlaw ANY product, it goes through the legislative branch of government and is signed into law by the president. That is civics 101.

Bump stocks are part of a firearm, just as the internal parts of a semi-automatic weapon are parts. There is already a precedent for the Attorney General's office to outlaw internal parts of a firearm. So, what you're arguing is irrelevant. The bump stock need not be the firearm itself.

And I ask you again: How can the Attorney General (or anyone else for that matter) circumvent Article 1 Section 9 prohibiting ex post facto laws?

 

[Humorme]

The far left does not want you to have any rights, so they can make up laws as they go along.

To them the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper!

~S~

That was a catchy video. It even had some truth within it, even though it ended up promoting socialism. There are things I find despicable about the way the country is being taken by the Republicans, but they are still light years ahead of the Democrats.

You see, sparky, if an educated American were listening to that carefully, the singers promoted democracy. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution says in Article 4 Section 4 "the United States shall guarantee to ever state in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

We never talk about your Rights under a Republican Form of Government. I don't like it when the Democrats try to take them and feel even worse when the Republicans try to do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

so just how many unalienable rights do we have?

Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights Among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Open to pretty wide interpretationss

Jefferson understood “unalienable rights” as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. The emphasis on our Creator is crucial, because it shows that the rights are permanent just as the Creator is permanent.

Jefferson’s thought on the source of these rights was impacted by Oxford’s William Blackstone, who described “unalienable rights” as “absolute” rights–showing that they were absolute because they came from him who is absolute, and that they were, are, and always will be, because the Giver of those rights–Jefferson’s “Creator”–was, and is, and always be.

Moreover, because we are “endowed” with them, the rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.

In a word, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them.

>>>>

~S~

So . . . that rock that fell on your head and gave you brain damage. Just exactly how big was it? Did it have sharp edges?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Well... again... you're mixing up the laws here, and saying irrelevant is... well... irrelevant.

You're talking about the banning of bump stocks which are not guns, they have no constitutional protection... none. Banning bump stocks has about the same relevance as banning sharp metal sucking nips on baby feeding bottles. They're not protected by the constitution either.

When you say "separate issue," you're right, because you're talking about something that is not protected by the constitution like guns are.

Here's an article that lays it out the same way, accessories are not covered by the Constitution.

Americans don't have the right to bear just any arms

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Bump stocks are part of a firearm, just as the internal parts of a semi-automatic weapon are parts. There is already a precedent for the Attorney General's office to outlaw internal parts of a firearm. So, what you're arguing is irrelevant. The bump stock need not be the firearm itself.

And I ask you again: How can the Attorney General (or anyone else for that matter) circumvent Article 1 Section 9 prohibiting ex post facto laws?

You contradict your own claims. If there already is a precedent for the AG to ban internal parts, then why couldn't the AG also ban accessories?

 

[Kondor3]

...Kondor, excuse me, but you're full of it...

As are we all, depending upon the subject matter, but that's not the case in this narrow context.

..."Most" people who are protesting are kids that have obviously never read history nor could they tell you anything about the Right to keep and bear Arms unless their parents are gun owners...

The protesting kids are merely the tip of a very deep and very large iceberg.

...Just in my lifetime, the government banned fully automatic weapons for civilians (and they couldn't find a single, solitary time a legally held full auto was used in a crime.) ..

Neither you nor I require automatic weapons to defend ourselves, so that's no big deal.

...The government banned the AK 47, Uzi, the FN / FAL...

Rightly so... these are all foreign-made automatic weapons.

...and even some shotguns...

I am unaware of this, but, even if true, it is not particularly signficant.

...There is an import ban on the EIGHT round M1 Garant as well as the M1 Carbine (weapons that were sold by the government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.)...

Why would you need to import an American military surplus rifle from South Korea?

...You can't even get an antiquated EIGHT shot .45 ACP Norinco into this country...

Plenty of similar weapons available domestically, without importing them.

...They passed the wholly illegal Lautenberg Amendment on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation and they passed the Brady Bill and I almost forgot to mention they passed the Assault Weapons Ban - that failed so miserably, legislators failed to find the justification to keep it...

Yes. They passed those things.

...In all those instances the left has never, ever, not even ONCE compromised and pass any kind of preventative measure...

All the more reason to find a Middle Ground that quiets the majority of them and consigns the mad-howling dog hyper-extremists amongst them to the dunce-chair.

...Adding insult to injury, the government, at every level, has admitted that had they used the tools they already had, the Parkland, Florida shooting would never have happened...

Given the human condition, you are always going to get Leakers... those who fall through the cracks due to systematic failures... conceded... nolo contendre...

The object of the exercise then becomes to tweak and improve and strengthen the system rather than dismantle it.

The system cannot be substantively improved without nationwide standards and licensing and registration and transaction approvals and even confiscation warrants. *

( * If you are convicted of a felony or diagnosed with a dangerous mental condition, your weapons should be confiscated with compensation or stored, via judicial review )

The system cannot be substantively improved without solid data and the legal muscle to enforce such nationwide standards.

The States have screwed-the-pooch on this and been given great latitude for decades.

Well... fun time's over... too many dead kids lying in pools of blood in too many schools... we've reached a Tipping Point in American politics, in favor of Gun Control.

Which is why I advocate for recognizing the looming New Reality and making the best deal you can, while there is still time.

Back in Roman TImes... if they were intent on besieging a city... they would negotiate over terms right up to the moment that their battering rams touched the walls.

Once the ram touched the wall, it was too late, and the Legionnaires would be granted free rein to slaughter and rape and pillage once the town had been taken.

The ram has not yet touched the wall, with respect to Gun Control, there's still some time remaining, to preserve much of what you want, while quieting the howling dogs.

But that's not going to last forever, eh?

Wake up... snap out of it... you're wasting precious time, clinging to status quo that is going to be bulldozed down to the ground, if you don't find that Middle Ground.

...And, instead of the public demanding WHY the government didn't do their job, they are making this disingenuous argument about so - called reasonable gun control. No matter how many times you repeat that false narrative about this not being about gun control, the more that people are going to be coming out of the woodwork and exposing you...

Such counter-arguments have been extant and in vigorous use for decades.

Trouble is, the Other Side... and vast numbers of Fence-Sitters who could go either way... have stopped listening to those arguments... too many dead kids in the ground.

...IF this were about saving lives, the anti-gun lobby would jump at the chance to work on bi-partisan efforts to reduce gun violence without gun control...

Nope. No sale. Time's up. You(r side) has been playing that Delaying Game for decades. Like I said.. your Opponents know the dogma... and have stopped listening.

...You see, just because you can't get the right to jump onto your anti-gun bandwagon, you could always save lives without gun control AND still lobby for the gun restrictions. But you won't. You don't care about saving lives. You only care about control. So quit trying to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.

You(r side) is in a fatal State of Denial... you just don't get it... the time of you having it all your own way is rapidly drawing to a close.

You are quickly running out of time... stop wasting it, while the choice is still yours, and while you still have some considerable influence to bring to bear upon the outcome.

Negotiate... before the ram touches the wall.

You have been warned.

 

[Uncensored2008]

so just how many unalienable rights do we have?

Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights Among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Open to pretty wide interpretationss

Jefferson understood “unalienable rights” as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. The emphasis on our Creator is crucial, because it shows that the rights are permanent just as the Creator is permanent.

Jefferson’s thought on the source of these rights was impacted by Oxford’s William Blackstone, who described “unalienable rights” as “absolute” rights–showing that they were absolute because they came from him who is absolute, and that they were, are, and always will be, because the Giver of those rights–Jefferson’s “Creator”–was, and is, and always be.

Moreover, because we are “endowed” with them, the rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.

In a word, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them.

>>>>

~S~

What a worthless fucking retard you are, Commie.

 

[Humorme]

...Kondor, excuse me, but you're full of it...

As are we all, depending upon the subject matter, but that's not the case in this narrow context.

..."Most" people who are protesting are kids that have obviously never read history nor could they tell you anything about the Right to keep and bear Arms unless their parents are gun owners...

The protesting kids are merely the tip of a very deep and very large iceberg.

...Just in my lifetime, the government banned fully automatic weapons for civilians (and they couldn't find a single, solitary time a legally held full auto was used in a crime.) ..

Neither you nor I require automatic weapons to defend ourselves, so that's no big deal.

...The government banned the AK 47, Uzi, the FN / FAL...

Rightly so... these are all foreign-made automatic weapons.

...and even some shotguns...

I am unaware of this, but, even if true, it is not particularly signficant.

...There is an import ban on the EIGHT round M1 Garant as well as the M1 Carbine (weapons that were sold by the government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.)...

Why would you need to import an American military surplus rifle from South Korea?

...You can't even get an antiquated EIGHT shot .45 ACP Norinco into this country...

Plenty of similar weapons available domestically, without importing them.

...They passed the wholly illegal Lautenberg Amendment on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation and they passed the Brady Bill and I almost forgot to mention they passed the Assault Weapons Ban - that failed so miserably, legislators failed to find the justification to keep it...

Yes. They passed those things.

...In all those instances the left has never, ever, not even ONCE compromised and pass any kind of preventative measure...

All the more reason to find a Middle Ground that quiets the majority of them and consigns the mad-howling dog hyper-extremists amongst them to the dunce-chair.

...Adding insult to injury, the government, at every level, has admitted that had they used the tools they already had, the Parkland, Florida shooting would never have happened...

Given the human condition, you are always going to get Leakers... those who fall through the cracks due to systematic failures... conceded... nolo contendre...

The object of the exercise then becomes to tweak and improve and strengthen the system rather than dismantle it.

The system cannot be substantively improved without nationwide standards and licensing and registration and transaction approvals and even confiscation warrants. *

( * If you are convicted of a felony or diagnosed with a dangerous mental condition, your weapons should be confiscated with compensation or stored, via judicial review )

The system cannot be substantively improved without solid data and the legal muscle to enforce such nationwide standards.

The States have screwed-the-pooch on this and been given great latitude for decades.

Well... fun time's over... too many dead kids lying in pools of blood in too many schools... we've reached a Tipping Point in American politics, in favor of Gun Control.

Which is why I advocate for recognizing the looming New Reality and making the best deal you can, while there is still time.

Back in Roman TImes... if they were intent on besieging a city... they would negotiate over terms right up to the moment that their battering rams touched the walls.

Once the ram touched the wall, it was too late, and the Legionnaires would be granted free rein to slaughter and rape and pillage once the town had been taken.

The ram has not yet touched the wall, with respect to Gun Control, there's still some time remaining, to preserve much of what you want, while quieting the howling dogs.

But that's not going to last forever, eh?

Wake up... snap out of it... you're wasting precious time, clinging to status quo that is going to be bulldozed down to the ground, if you don't find that Middle Ground.

...And, instead of the public demanding WHY the government didn't do their job, they are making this disingenuous argument about so - called reasonable gun control. No matter how many times you repeat that false narrative about this not being about gun control, the more that people are going to be coming out of the woodwork and exposing you...

Such counter-arguments have been extant and in vigorous use for decades.

Trouble is, the Other Side... and vast numbers of Fence-Sitters who could go either way... have stopped listening to those arguments... too many dead kids in the ground.

...IF this were about saving lives, the anti-gun lobby would jump at the chance to work on bi-partisan efforts to reduce gun violence without gun control...

Nope. No sale. Time's up. You(r side) has been playing that Delaying Game for decades. Like I said.. your Opponents know the dogma... and have stopped listening.

...You see, just because you can't get the right to jump onto your anti-gun bandwagon, you could always save lives without gun control AND still lobby for the gun restrictions. But you won't. You don't care about saving lives. You only care about control. So quit trying to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.

You(r side) is in a fatal State of Denial... you just don't get it... the time of you having it all your own way is rapidly drawing to a close.

You are quickly running out of time... stop wasting it, while the choice is still yours, and while you still have some considerable influence to bring to bear upon the outcome.

Negotiate... before the ram touches the wall.

You have been warned.

1) The kids are the iceberg

2) The purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee a Right that predated the Constitution. It don't matter what you think I "need." I might not think you need a Bible, cigarettes, booze, or tattoos. So, it's irrelevant. Besides virtually all the founders disagree with you

3) The United States owned the weapons that are housed in foreign countries. We use them to train civilians

4) Our country is based upon the free market. You sound like a communist

5) Most of the balance of your drivel is wasted bandwidth

6) As I've pointed out, I don't have a side and it's time you know this: there is a segment of America that will push back if you attempt to infringe on their Rights.

All the crap you spew cannot constitutionally be done. I don't need your permission to exercise a constitutional Right and you are LYING to yourself AND the posters here.

I have offered a complete plan that would stop most mass shootings without gun control. Instead of creating walls of text that most people aren't going to read because it is nonsense, you might want to come down here to the real world.

The Ds and Rs cannot solve this problem. They are playing the blame game; I've challenged the Rs to come out and support a series of preventative measures, but they're content to blame the Ds and the Ds are blaming the Rs.

BOTH OF YOU ARE EQUALLY GUILTY. DEMOCRATS WANT A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP AND THE REPUBLICANS WANT THE ULTIMATE POLICE STATE.

Either way, my Rights are not for sale and you can promote all the socialist / Marxist horse dung you want - and you sling a lot of it, but you may as well have killed those children in Lakeland, Florida because you're just as guilty as the shooter. Instead of asking what could be done OTHER THAN silly gun control, you want to play the blame game. And now you've shown how utterly bass ackwards you really are. You didn't even have enough common sense to ask me if I had a side... Neither side is making my points. WHY? I don't have a side.

 

[Kondor3]

...Kondor, excuse me, but you're full of it...

As are we all, depending upon the subject matter, but that's not the case in this narrow context.

..."Most" people who are protesting are kids that have obviously never read history nor could they tell you anything about the Right to keep and bear Arms unless their parents are gun owners...

The protesting kids are merely the tip of a very deep and very large iceberg.

...Just in my lifetime, the government banned fully automatic weapons for civilians (and they couldn't find a single, solitary time a legally held full auto was used in a crime.) ..

Neither you nor I require automatic weapons to defend ourselves, so that's no big deal.

...The government banned the AK 47, Uzi, the FN / FAL...

Rightly so... these are all foreign-made automatic weapons.

...and even some shotguns...

I am unaware of this, but, even if true, it is not particularly signficant.

...There is an import ban on the EIGHT round M1 Garant as well as the M1 Carbine (weapons that were sold by the government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.)...

Why would you need to import an American military surplus rifle from South Korea?

...You can't even get an antiquated EIGHT shot .45 ACP Norinco into this country...

Plenty of similar weapons available domestically, without importing them.

...They passed the wholly illegal Lautenberg Amendment on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation and they passed the Brady Bill and I almost forgot to mention they passed the Assault Weapons Ban - that failed so miserably, legislators failed to find the justification to keep it...

Yes. They passed those things.

...In all those instances the left has never, ever, not even ONCE compromised and pass any kind of preventative measure...

All the more reason to find a Middle Ground that quiets the majority of them and consigns the mad-howling dog hyper-extremists amongst them to the dunce-chair.

...Adding insult to injury, the government, at every level, has admitted that had they used the tools they already had, the Parkland, Florida shooting would never have happened...

Given the human condition, you are always going to get Leakers... those who fall through the cracks due to systematic failures... conceded... nolo contendre...

The object of the exercise then becomes to tweak and improve and strengthen the system rather than dismantle it.

The system cannot be substantively improved without nationwide standards and licensing and registration and transaction approvals and even confiscation warrants. *

( * If you are convicted of a felony or diagnosed with a dangerous mental condition, your weapons should be confiscated with compensation or stored, via judicial review )

The system cannot be substantively improved without solid data and the legal muscle to enforce such nationwide standards.

The States have screwed-the-pooch on this and been given great latitude for decades.

Well... fun time's over... too many dead kids lying in pools of blood in too many schools... we've reached a Tipping Point in American politics, in favor of Gun Control.

Which is why I advocate for recognizing the looming New Reality and making the best deal you can, while there is still time.

Back in Roman TImes... if they were intent on besieging a city... they would negotiate over terms right up to the moment that their battering rams touched the walls.

Once the ram touched the wall, it was too late, and the Legionnaires would be granted free rein to slaughter and rape and pillage once the town had been taken.

The ram has not yet touched the wall, with respect to Gun Control, there's still some time remaining, to preserve much of what you want, while quieting the howling dogs.

But that's not going to last forever, eh?

Wake up... snap out of it... you're wasting precious time, clinging to status quo that is going to be bulldozed down to the ground, if you don't find that Middle Ground.

...And, instead of the public demanding WHY the government didn't do their job, they are making this disingenuous argument about so - called reasonable gun control. No matter how many times you repeat that false narrative about this not being about gun control, the more that people are going to be coming out of the woodwork and exposing you...

Such counter-arguments have been extant and in vigorous use for decades.

Trouble is, the Other Side... and vast numbers of Fence-Sitters who could go either way... have stopped listening to those arguments... too many dead kids in the ground.

...IF this were about saving lives, the anti-gun lobby would jump at the chance to work on bi-partisan efforts to reduce gun violence without gun control...

Nope. No sale. Time's up. You(r side) has been playing that Delaying Game for decades. Like I said.. your Opponents know the dogma... and have stopped listening.

...You see, just because you can't get the right to jump onto your anti-gun bandwagon, you could always save lives without gun control AND still lobby for the gun restrictions. But you won't. You don't care about saving lives. You only care about control. So quit trying to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.

You(r side) is in a fatal State of Denial... you just don't get it... the time of you having it all your own way is rapidly drawing to a close.

You are quickly running out of time... stop wasting it, while the choice is still yours, and while you still have some considerable influence to bring to bear upon the outcome.

Negotiate... before the ram touches the wall.

You have been warned.

1) The kids are the iceberg

2) The purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee a Right that predated the Constitution. It don't matter what you think I "need." I might not think you need a Bible, cigarettes, booze, or tattoos. So, it's irrelevant. Besides virtually all the founders disagree with you

3) The United States owned the weapons that are housed in foreign countries. We use them to train civilians

4) Our country is based upon the free market. You sound like a communist

5) Most of the balance of your drivel is wasted bandwidth

6) As I've pointed out, I don't have a side and it's time you know this: there is a segment of America that will push back if you attempt to infringe on their Rights.

All the crap you spew cannot constitutionally be done. I don't need your permission to exercise a constitutional Right and you are LYING to yourself AND the posters here.

I have offered a complete plan that would stop most mass shootings without gun control. Instead of creating walls of text that most people aren't going to read because it is nonsense, you might want to come down here to the real world.

The Ds and Rs cannot solve this problem. They are playing the blame game; I've challenged the Rs to come out and support a series of preventative measures, but they're content to blame the Ds and the Ds are blaming the Rs.

BOTH OF YOU ARE EQUALLY GUILTY. DEMOCRATS WANT A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP AND THE REPUBLICANS WANT THE ULTIMATE POLICE STATE.

Either way, my Rights are not for sale and you can promote all the socialist / Marxist horse dung you want - and you sling a lot of it, but you may as well have killed those children in Lakeland, Florida because you're just as guilty as the shooter. Instead of asking what could be done OTHER THAN silly gun control, you want to play the blame game. And now you've shown how utterly bass ackwards you really are. You didn't even have enough common sense to ask me if I had a side... Neither side is making my points. WHY? I don't have a side.

Seen.

Wrong.

Enjoyed.

Irrelevant to the steamroller headed your way.

But you keep right on hiding your head in the 'sand' of the past and wasting what little time you have left, to reach a compromise, before that steamroller runs over you.

 

[Humorme]

...Kondor, excuse me, but you're full of it...

As are we all, depending upon the subject matter, but that's not the case in this narrow context.

..."Most" people who are protesting are kids that have obviously never read history nor could they tell you anything about the Right to keep and bear Arms unless their parents are gun owners...

The protesting kids are merely the tip of a very deep and very large iceberg.

...Just in my lifetime, the government banned fully automatic weapons for civilians (and they couldn't find a single, solitary time a legally held full auto was used in a crime.) ..

Neither you nor I require automatic weapons to defend ourselves, so that's no big deal.

...The government banned the AK 47, Uzi, the FN / FAL...

Rightly so... these are all foreign-made automatic weapons.

...and even some shotguns...

I am unaware of this, but, even if true, it is not particularly signficant.

...There is an import ban on the EIGHT round M1 Garant as well as the M1 Carbine (weapons that were sold by the government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.)...

Why would you need to import an American military surplus rifle from South Korea?

...You can't even get an antiquated EIGHT shot .45 ACP Norinco into this country...

Plenty of similar weapons available domestically, without importing them.

...They passed the wholly illegal Lautenberg Amendment on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation and they passed the Brady Bill and I almost forgot to mention they passed the Assault Weapons Ban - that failed so miserably, legislators failed to find the justification to keep it...

Yes. They passed those things.

...In all those instances the left has never, ever, not even ONCE compromised and pass any kind of preventative measure...

All the more reason to find a Middle Ground that quiets the majority of them and consigns the mad-howling dog hyper-extremists amongst them to the dunce-chair.

...Adding insult to injury, the government, at every level, has admitted that had they used the tools they already had, the Parkland, Florida shooting would never have happened...

Given the human condition, you are always going to get Leakers... those who fall through the cracks due to systematic failures... conceded... nolo contendre...

The object of the exercise then becomes to tweak and improve and strengthen the system rather than dismantle it.

The system cannot be substantively improved without nationwide standards and licensing and registration and transaction approvals and even confiscation warrants. *

( * If you are convicted of a felony or diagnosed with a dangerous mental condition, your weapons should be confiscated with compensation or stored, via judicial review )

The system cannot be substantively improved without solid data and the legal muscle to enforce such nationwide standards.

The States have screwed-the-pooch on this and been given great latitude for decades.

Well... fun time's over... too many dead kids lying in pools of blood in too many schools... we've reached a Tipping Point in American politics, in favor of Gun Control.

Which is why I advocate for recognizing the looming New Reality and making the best deal you can, while there is still time.

Back in Roman TImes... if they were intent on besieging a city... they would negotiate over terms right up to the moment that their battering rams touched the walls.

Once the ram touched the wall, it was too late, and the Legionnaires would be granted free rein to slaughter and rape and pillage once the town had been taken.

The ram has not yet touched the wall, with respect to Gun Control, there's still some time remaining, to preserve much of what you want, while quieting the howling dogs.

But that's not going to last forever, eh?

Wake up... snap out of it... you're wasting precious time, clinging to status quo that is going to be bulldozed down to the ground, if you don't find that Middle Ground.

...And, instead of the public demanding WHY the government didn't do their job, they are making this disingenuous argument about so - called reasonable gun control. No matter how many times you repeat that false narrative about this not being about gun control, the more that people are going to be coming out of the woodwork and exposing you...

Such counter-arguments have been extant and in vigorous use for decades.

Trouble is, the Other Side... and vast numbers of Fence-Sitters who could go either way... have stopped listening to those arguments... too many dead kids in the ground.

...IF this were about saving lives, the anti-gun lobby would jump at the chance to work on bi-partisan efforts to reduce gun violence without gun control...

Nope. No sale. Time's up. You(r side) has been playing that Delaying Game for decades. Like I said.. your Opponents know the dogma... and have stopped listening.

...You see, just because you can't get the right to jump onto your anti-gun bandwagon, you could always save lives without gun control AND still lobby for the gun restrictions. But you won't. You don't care about saving lives. You only care about control. So quit trying to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.

You(r side) is in a fatal State of Denial... you just don't get it... the time of you having it all your own way is rapidly drawing to a close.

You are quickly running out of time... stop wasting it, while the choice is still yours, and while you still have some considerable influence to bring to bear upon the outcome.

Negotiate... before the ram touches the wall.

You have been warned.

1) The kids are the iceberg

2) The purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee a Right that predated the Constitution. It don't matter what you think I "need." I might not think you need a Bible, cigarettes, booze, or tattoos. So, it's irrelevant. Besides virtually all the founders disagree with you

3) The United States owned the weapons that are housed in foreign countries. We use them to train civilians

4) Our country is based upon the free market. You sound like a communist

5) Most of the balance of your drivel is wasted bandwidth

6) As I've pointed out, I don't have a side and it's time you know this: there is a segment of America that will push back if you attempt to infringe on their Rights.

All the crap you spew cannot constitutionally be done. I don't need your permission to exercise a constitutional Right and you are LYING to yourself AND the posters here.

I have offered a complete plan that would stop most mass shootings without gun control. Instead of creating walls of text that most people aren't going to read because it is nonsense, you might want to come down here to the real world.

The Ds and Rs cannot solve this problem. They are playing the blame game; I've challenged the Rs to come out and support a series of preventative measures, but they're content to blame the Ds and the Ds are blaming the Rs.

BOTH OF YOU ARE EQUALLY GUILTY. DEMOCRATS WANT A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP AND THE REPUBLICANS WANT THE ULTIMATE POLICE STATE.

Either way, my Rights are not for sale and you can promote all the socialist / Marxist horse dung you want - and you sling a lot of it, but you may as well have killed those children in Lakeland, Florida because you're just as guilty as the shooter. Instead of asking what could be done OTHER THAN silly gun control, you want to play the blame game. And now you've shown how utterly bass ackwards you really are. You didn't even have enough common sense to ask me if I had a side... Neither side is making my points. WHY? I don't have a side.

Seen.

Wrong.

Enjoyed.

Irrelevant to the steamroller headed your way.

But you keep right on hiding your head in the 'sand' of the past and wasting what little time you have left, to reach a compromise, before that steamroller runs over you.

YOU seem to be the one with their head buried in the sand. The thing of it is, the anti-gunners are not concerned with saving lives as much as they are about banning firearms.

You don't get to decide the value of my life. If you're threatening gun owners, you'd better realize a percentage will fight back.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

If you want to stop most mass shootings - and gun violence in general without gun control, then I would welcome your support as I could reduce and maybe even prevent virtually every mass shooting without any attacks on the Second Amendment. You can do that OR keep pushing this country toward an internal conflict. If it's war you want, you damn sure are picking the wrong enemy.

 

[Kondor3]

...YOU seem to be the one with their head buried in the sand...

Always a possibility, of course, but I'm not the one worried about Gun Control, in the face of vast and increasing pressure for substantive change.

...The thing of it is, the anti-gunners are not concerned with saving lives as much as they are about banning firearms...

For some, that's certainly true; for most, they are, indeed, intent on saving lives, and see Gun Control as one aspect of a multi-faceted solution.

...You don't get to decide the value of my life...

Nowhere in what I've written in this thread on this subject can an intelligent and objective and realistic person honestly infer that.

...If you're threatening gun owners, you'd better realize a percentage will fight back...

Nowhere in what I've written in this thread on this subject can an intelligent and objective and realistic person honestly infer that.

..."Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778...

Yes, yes, yes... very nice... here's another.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You and I are part of the informal Militia of Last Resort in defense of the Republic.

You and I are not at-risk of having our Right to Bear Arms infringed upon.

You and I are merely going to be 'well regulated' in this context.

Regulation being: nationwide standards and licensing and registration and transaction approval and training and storage and disposal and reporting responsibilities.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Requiring rights-holders to undertake responsibilities deemed appropriate and desirable for the public safety and general welfare does not constitute infringement.

...If you want to stop most mass shootings - and gun violence in general without gun control, then I would welcome your support as I could reduce and maybe even prevent virtually every mass shooting without any attacks on the Second Amendment...

In our present age, a halt to mass shootings is impossible to sustain without substantive Gun Control.

Nobody is attacking the Second Amendment nor our rights under it.

They are merely articulating the new responsibilities that we will be required to undertake in connection with the exercising of our right.

...You can do that OR keep pushing this country toward an internal conflict. If it's war you want, you damn sure are picking the wrong enemy.

You will obey the Laws of the United States, and judicial interpretations of same, both present and future, regardless of your blustering.

Guaranteed.

 

[Humorme]

...YOU seem to be the one with their head buried in the sand...

Always a possibility, of course, but I'm not the one worried about Gun Control, in the face of vast and increasing pressure for substantive change.

...The thing of it is, the anti-gunners are not concerned with saving lives as much as they are about banning firearms...

For some, that's certainly true; for most, they are, indeed, intent on saving lives, and see Gun Control as one aspect of a multi-faceted solution.

...You don't get to decide the value of my life...

Nowhere in what I've written in this thread on this subject can an intelligent and objective and realistic person honestly infer that.

...If you're threatening gun owners, you'd better realize a percentage will fight back...

Nowhere in what I've written in this thread on this subject can an intelligent and objective and realistic person honestly infer that.

..."Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778...

Yes, yes, yes... very nice... here's another.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You and I are part of the informal Militia of Last Resort in defense of the Republic.

You and I are not at-risk of having our Right to Bear Arms infringed upon.

You and I are merely going to be 'well regulated' in this context.

Regulation being: nationwide standards and licensing and registration and transaction approval and training and storage and disposal and reporting responsibilities.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Requiring rights-holders to undertake responsibilities deemed appropriate and desirable for the public safety and general welfare does not constitute infringement.

...If you want to stop most mass shootings - and gun violence in general without gun control, then I would welcome your support as I could reduce and maybe even prevent virtually every mass shooting without any attacks on the Second Amendment...

In our present age, a halt to mass shootings is impossible to sustain without substantive Gun Control.

Nobody is attacking the Second Amendment nor our rights under it.

They are merely articulating the new responsibilities that we will be required to undertake in connection with the exercising of our right.

...You can do that OR keep pushing this country toward an internal conflict. If it's war you want, you damn sure are picking the wrong enemy.

You will obey the Laws of the United States, and judicial interpretations of same, both present and future, regardless of your blustering.

Guaranteed.

Again, you throw up walls of text as if criticizing every word I've written is wrong. It shows a sense of desperation on your part as everyone knows that even a broken clock has the potential of being right twice a day. You, not realizing that when you quote every sentence - most likely 90 percent of the posters here are ignoring you. But FWIW, this is my response:

1) Anti-gunners are obsessed with "change." and you kind of remind me of the biblical Israelites in the Bible who were not satisfied with being in a superior position than the other nations so they petitioned to ruled by a king. After they got their wish, it wasn't such a blessing after all - and neither will it be for you

2) You continue to try and filibuster and throw up walls of text. You don't want any "multifaceted solution." - you want CONTROL. Big difference there, chief

3) You quote the Second Amendment and then display absolute ignorance in understanding it. Let these guys help you out:



4) The term "well regulated" applies to the militia, NOT the firearms. And how did the founders end their discussion and define this terminology regarding regulate?

"The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

"The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them" Richard Henry Lee

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

Are you seeing a consistent theme there? The regulation of the militia has NOTHING to do with registering firearms nor trying to ban certain types of weapons; it doesn't have anything to do with background checks or the permission to own or carry a weapon.

5) You are talking out both sides of your mouth. It sounds a bit hypocritical. On one hand you claim to be for a "multifaceted solution" and then proclaim that the only solution is gun control.

No, you don't need to respond to every sentence I wrote here. If you do and you want a pissing match, you'd better have one Hell of a lot of time on your hands because my next post (if you force me) will take you a week to address and NOBODY will read your responses - Most won't read what I'll put on this board. You'll just prove that you are only good at losing.

 

[initforme]

God first family second .....real patriotism.

 

[Kondor3]

...Again, you throw up walls of text as if criticizing every word I've written is wrong...

But so much of what you wrote was worth counterpointing

...It shows a sense of desperation on your part as everyone knows that even a broken clock has the potential of being right twice a day. You, not realizing that when you quote every sentence - most likely 90 percent of the posters here are ignoring you. But FWIW, this is my response:..

Thank you for your feedback. <snicker>

...1) Anti-gunners are obsessed with "change." and you kind of remind me of the biblical Israelites in the Bible who were not satisfied with being in a superior position than the other nations so they petitioned to ruled by a king. After they got their wish, it wasn't such a blessing after all - and neither will it be for you...

Good for me that I'm not an "anti-gunner" then, eh?

...2) You continue to try and filibuster and throw up walls of text. You don't want any "multifaceted solution." - you want CONTROL. Big difference there, chief...

I do, indeed, want a multi-faceted solution; of which one facet is Federal -level vetting, approvals, licensure, registration, training and monitoring of compliance.

...3) You quote the Second Amendment and then display absolute ignorance in understanding it. Let these guys help you out:..

The Second Amendment, like the entire Constitution, is open to varying interpretations; not the least of which is that the General Welfare is paramount.

...Are you seeing a consistent theme there? The regulation of the militia has NOTHING to do with registering firearms nor trying to ban certain types of weapons; it doesn't have anything to do with background checks or the permission to own or carry a weapon...

That was then.

This is now.

We interpret that aspect of the Constitution much differently, and that latter day interpretation if becoming vastly more prevalent, and will soon become operative.

...5) You are talking out both sides of your mouth. It sounds a bit hypocritical. On one hand you claim to be for a "multifaceted solution" and then proclaim that the only solution is gun control...

Semantics; lacking substance.

...No, you don't need to respond to every sentence I wrote here. If you do and you want a pissing match, you'd better have one Hell of a lot of time on your hands because my next post (if you force me) will take you a week to address and NOBODY will read your responses...

Golly-gosh gee-whiz and golly-gee-willickers, Emmy Lou, but I'm in real trouble now... please don't impale me on your Mighty NRA-Logo fountain pen !!!

...- Most won't read what I'll put on this board...

What makes you think they do now?

...You'll just prove that you are only good at losing.

Snicker... snort... you tell 'em, my little Internet Tiger !!!

 

[Humorme]

...Again, you throw up walls of text as if criticizing every word I've written is wrong...

But so much of what you wrote was worth counterpointing

...It shows a sense of desperation on your part as everyone knows that even a broken clock has the potential of being right twice a day. You, not realizing that when you quote every sentence - most likely 90 percent of the posters here are ignoring you. But FWIW, this is my response:..

Thank you for your feedback. <snicker>

...1) Anti-gunners are obsessed with "change." and you kind of remind me of the biblical Israelites in the Bible who were not satisfied with being in a superior position than the other nations so they petitioned to ruled by a king. After they got their wish, it wasn't such a blessing after all - and neither will it be for you...

Good for me that I'm not an "anti-gunner" then, eh?

...2) You continue to try and filibuster and throw up walls of text. You don't want any "multifaceted solution." - you want CONTROL. Big difference there, chief...

I do, indeed, want a multi-faceted solution; of which one facet is Federal -level vetting, approvals, licensure, registration, training and monitoring of compliance.

...3) You quote the Second Amendment and then display absolute ignorance in understanding it. Let these guys help you out:..

The Second Amendment, like the entire Constitution, is open to varying interpretations; not the least of which is that the General Welfare is paramount.

...Are you seeing a consistent theme there? The regulation of the militia has NOTHING to do with registering firearms nor trying to ban certain types of weapons; it doesn't have anything to do with background checks or the permission to own or carry a weapon...

That was then.

This is now.

We interpret that aspect of the Constitution much differently, and that latter day interpretation if becoming vastly more prevalent, and will soon become operative.

...5) You are talking out both sides of your mouth. It sounds a bit hypocritical. On one hand you claim to be for a "multifaceted solution" and then proclaim that the only solution is gun control...

Semantics; lacking substance.

...No, you don't need to respond to every sentence I wrote here. If you do and you want a pissing match, you'd better have one Hell of a lot of time on your hands because my next post (if you force me) will take you a week to address and NOBODY will read your responses...

Golly-gosh gee-whiz and golly-gee-willickers, Emmy Lou, but I'm in real trouble now... please don't impale me on your Mighty NRA-Logo fountain pen !!!

...- Most won't read what I'll put on this board...

What makes you think they do now?

...You'll just prove that you are only good at losing.

Snicker... snort... you tell 'em, my little Internet Tiger !!!

I'm glad that Kondor admitted he / she plays semantics. Saved me five paragraphs proving that he / she is anti-gun. He / she has no sense of history.

Kondor wrote:

"We interpret that aspect of the Constitution much differently, and that latter day interpretation if becoming vastly more prevalent, and will soon become operative"

Our founders want a word with you:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)





According to the Declaration of Independence:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:


"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."


The Courts have had this to say regarding the Declaration of Independence:


"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."


Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)


The state courts were the first to interpret our U.S. Constitution on this issue. How did they feel? Here is the earliest of those decisions:

"But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form—it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. ... The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; ... For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing [of] concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former is unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."

Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 KY. (2 LITT.) 90 (Kentucky 1822)


"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!


Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


Our "own Magna Charta" would be the Declaration of Independence. That document established the principle of unalienable Rights.


The state of Texas weighed in a little later, They ruled:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."


Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)


Are you beginning to see that theme regarding unalienable and absolute / shall not be infringed where the Right is above the lawmaking power? Finally, let us see how the earliest United States Supreme Court decision saw this issue:


"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.


United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


Notice that the Court did not say the Right doesn't exist. They admit it DOES, in fact, exist. So, by what authority can you deprive a freeman of his unalienable (aka natural, God given, inherent, absolute) Rights? In a de jure / lawful / constitutional government, you can't. You don't have that authority. You may have that power, but once a man has been released back into society, he should retain his Rights. His wife and daughter deserve the same protections your family do.

You don't want to know about our history. Think about what our forefathers were reading before they signed on to the Declaration of Independence:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)

Kondor has rejected the entire aspect of constitutional law that protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. And, while gun control may appeal to some on the left, THEIR Freedoms and Liberties are equally at stake. The Bill of Rights is not ten different laws; it is all ONE law. Therefore, if Kondor is threatening the constitutionalists with mob rule against our foundational principles he / she will wake up one morning without ANY constitutional protections. The Right to say stupid shit in public? No, that one will be gone. The Right to belong to a religion or non-religion? Nope. That Right will be held to the same standard that all the Bill of Rights is subject to.

Kondor will have to accept the state religion.

If Kondor is threatening the gun owners by getting the United States Supreme Court to over-rule their own rulings, it could happen... but, one day the pendulum is going to swing against the United States Supreme Court and those political hacks in black robes, playing God will be held accountable for what they're doing. Using the United States Supreme Court as a legislative tool is going to set a precedent so bad that the liberals will be committing suicide once the precedents they want to set begin working against them.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine, founding father

Now, I realize that BOTH sides of the aisle violate that admonition - and I chastise them BOTH when they do it. So Kondor can filibuster all he / she wants, but you really cannot screw someone out of their Rights and expect that it is a free ride. Frederic Douglass understood this concept when he said:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."


Kondor keeps saying that you cannot address this issue without gun control and then says he / she isn't anti - gun. I hate it when people try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining. You're either for the Constitution, unalienable Rights, etc. or you are not. But telling me you cannot address gun violence without gun control is tantamount to telling me you cannot address DUI wrecks without outlawing booze... Ah. So, if you're reading between the lines, this is EXACTLY what my rant has been about. Let me give you an example:

One time the city of Atlanta banned so - called "assault weapons." So I was asked to come in and help research cases upon which to challenge the ordinance in court. Well, the city's position was that, since cigarette smoking had been curtailed in the interest of public safety, the people gave the city of Atlanta permission to enact gun control as a safety precaution. Bet you can't guess what dumb ass wrote that anti-smoking ordinance. Of course, the warning will fly over Kondor's head. He / she is too arrogant to figure it all out.

BTW, the ONLY reason the city of Atlanta lost that case is because the state stepped in and said the city was preempted by state laws on the issue.

So, IF Kondor is right and you use the United States Supreme Court to illegally over-rule their own precedents, then the left has NO RECOURSE once their precedent costs them one of their Freedoms. And which of those will it be? Booze, tattoos, junk food / large portions like super sizes, or maybe tobacco products? Will they set the precedent whereby some extremist group can screw you out of your Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment Rights? People like Kondor don't care - they don't have a clue as to how constitutional guarantees are protected in our Republic. They care about winning. And so, Kondor wanted to have a war of wall of text so that he / she could provide the most evidence in their case. He / she just got the chance to do a lot of research.

Gun violence needs to addressed. But, we should address it the same way we treat the DUI issue. We don't ban booze NOR even require people be forced to carry a permit to buy or have booze. Hell, you can even buy booze, get in a car fall down drunk and kill people. You might go to jail, but the day you get out, you can go to a bar, get drunk on your ass, go out, get in a car, and kill umpteen people all over again. And more people are killed by booze (intentional and unintentional) than by firearms.

Yes, you can come up with solutions that will all but wipe out mass shootings. The government even admits that Nickolas Cruz's rampage could have and should have been prevented under existing laws.

We could impact gun violence across the board without gun control, but Kondor won't sign on so he / she has as much blood on his / her hands as Nickolas Cruz. Now, let us see how many posts Kondor needs to refute the honest truth.

 

[Kondor3]

...We could impact gun violence across the board without gun control...

Gun Control is one aspect of a multi-faceted solution - a necessary facet - but that does not preclude us from moving forward in other areas, as well.

...but Kondor won't sign on...

Incorrect.

Place security personnel where needed. Place surveillance apparatus where needed. Increase quick-response training for police. Knock yourself out.

Just don't expect to deflect the looming wave of Gun Control measures while you're doing it.

... so he / she has as much blood on his / her hands as Nickolas Cruz...

Incorrect.

Already covered in the previous segment immediately above.

Go for it.

Unless, of course, you plan on holding those measures hostage for an agreement not to pursue enhanced Gun Control.

In which case, it is not the Gun Control folk with blood on their hands; rather, it would be those who hold hostage other aspects/facets of a hybrid solution.

...Now, let us see how many posts Kondor needs to refute the honest truth.

One is quite enough to refute your simple-minded nonsense, thank you.

 

[Humorme]

...We could impact gun violence across the board without gun control...

Gun Control is one aspect of a multi-faceted solution - a necessary facet - but that does not preclude us from moving forward in other areas, as well.

...but Kondor won't sign on...

Incorrect.

Place security personnel where needed. Place surveillance apparatus where needed. Increase quick-response training for police. Knock yourself out.

Just don't expect to deflect the looming wave of Gun Control measures while you're doing it.

... so he / she has as much blood on his / her hands as Nickolas Cruz...

Incorrect.

Already covered in the previous segment immediately above.

Go for it.

Unless, of course, you plan on holding those measures hostage for an agreement not to pursue enhanced Gun Control.

In which case, it is not the Gun Control folk with blood on their hands; rather, it would be those who hold hostage other aspects/facets of a hybrid solution.

...Now, let us see how many posts Kondor needs to refute the honest truth.

One is quite enough to refute your simple-minded nonsense, thank you.

You like making small digs at people, but you have little going for you. You talk out both sides of your mouth.

Either you believe that there are ways other than gun control OR there is no way other than gun control to resolve the issue. It's not both ways. Security cameras and armed teachers do not prevent the would be attackers from making the attempts. You keep harping on a multi faceted approach. If you believe that, what are YOU, individually, doing that will address the issue?

You are the one threatening gun owners with future gun control while refusing to have a civil conversation about the issue. You are simply trolling people for shits and giggles. You know it and so does everybody else.

You could not refute the truth so you took cheap shots at me. I won't return the favor. I think the people are smart enough to see through you and credible people who believe in gun control would not want to associate with you. It was far too easy to kick your ass, prove you wrong and then read your nervous and insincere B.S. attempt to denigrate me when you failed to put up a defense against the facts.

I know you have OCD, so IF you think you gave me the knock-out punch with that deflection you call a reply, you will have to respond to this. If you had really beaten me, you could walk away. The reason I won't walk away is when people begin to denigrate me and pretend to be smarter than everyone else, I'm there to let them know - you will be exposed as a fake, phony, and poseur if you cannot address each of my points honestly and with well thought out responses to the facts presented.

In the past, the gun rights lobby has compromised with gun control advocates. Your gun control has NOT worked. So, it's time the anti-gun lobby made a compromise. You need to listen to what I'm telling you and implement my ideas. Let us suppose that we passed both preventative gun measures AND gun control. If it failed, you would still blame gun owners. If it succeeded, you would take the credit. But you know what would happen if we passed my measures and gun violence dropped. It's not about saving lives. For your side, it is about winning and banning guns. No thanks.