You want a ban? Amend the Constitution

[RetiredGySgt]

You have been told over and over. You want to ban firearms, amend the Constitution. All it takes is for you to get a new amendment through both houses of Congress and then passed by 37 States. If as you claim people want the firearm laws to change then how hard can that be?

California has strict laws on the books and yet those laws did not stop a mass shooting. No more laws are needed in regards firearms. Just enforce the laws we have and see to the mentally unstable.

 

[KNB]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Really?

Google "Operation Chokepoint" then get back to us.

 

[KNB]

Oooh, Operation Chokepoint? Sounds exciting. Big government and big business collusion? It's liberal fascism, right? Like the government and industry leaders haven't been in collusion for centuries, right? It's all Obama because he's a Marxist Sharia Kenyan, or whatever the fuck you people think.

Draw your guns and kill your government. If you know that your government is a threat to your freedom then why are you sitting on a message board instead of taking the war to them?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah, liberal argument destroyed in one post. And I didn't even have to call ACME either.

 

[KNB]

Where are police starting to take away law-abiding citizens guns?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You want a ban? Amend the Constitution

Incorrect.

The ‘argument’ that the rulings by Federal courts ‘change’ the Constitution is ignorant and wrong, as is the notion that restrictions on civil liberties can come about only as a result of an ‘amendment.’

Although inalienable, our civil liberties are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restriction by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Jurisdictions are consequently at liberty to enact whatever measures concerning guns as they see fit, provided such measures do not constitute a comprehensive ban of all firearms or the carrying of concealed firearms.

And residents of those jurisdictions are also at liberty to challenge the constitutionality of measures seeking to ban particular firearms perceived to be “dangerous and unusual weapons,” where should the government fail to justify the prohibition, such measures are invalidated.

The Federal courts determine what the Constitution means, including and up to the Supreme Court, where laws repugnant to the Constitution are struck down by the Federal courts, and those enacted in accordance with the Founding Document and its case law upheld – no ‘amendments’ needed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Really?

Google "Operation Chokepoint" then get back to us.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Justice Department’s investigation into banks and payment processing firms acting as middlemen for potentially illegal firearms transactions was conducted in accordance with comprehensive due process and appropriate government oversight:

In a November 2013 internal memo, a Justice Department official said the agency had opened civil investigations into 10 banks and payment processors, as well as criminal investigations of one bank and four payment-processing firms.

Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, deputy assistant attorney general, described the government’s so-called “Operation Choke Point” probe a success, saying banks are stepping up scrutiny of their relationships with firms that process payments.

“In several cases, after receiving a subpoena, banks and processors have self-disclosed potentially problematic relationships and have informed us that they have taken corrective action,” she wrote in the internal memo.

?Operation Choke Point? Details Disclosed in Government Memos - Law Blog - WSJ

The notion that this investigation is designed to ‘ban all guns’ is as ignorant and wrong as the errant notion that gun regulations can be enacted only as a result of an ‘amendment’ to the Constitution.

A conservative lie debunked in one post, just like all the other lies contrived and propagated by the partisan right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where are police starting to take away law-abiding citizens guns?

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...9/C:12-2272:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1342808:S:0

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals says it is not unconstitutional for police to break in and enter someone's home to take guns from a citizen if they believe it is "in their best interest." Basically, it's not a matter of where, but when.

Is this enough for you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh and lets not forget the SAFE Act:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-to-seize-firearms-without-a-warrant-lawsuit/

 

[Kosh]

If the far left in this country had their way the constitution would be abolished..

 

[LoneLaugher]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Really?

Google "Operation Chokepoint" then get back to us.

That does not prove that anyone wants to ban guns. Want to try again?

 

[JoeB131]

You have been told over and over. You want to ban firearms, amend the Constitution. All it takes is for you to get a new amendment through both houses of Congress and then passed by 37 States. If as you claim people want the firearm laws to change then how hard can that be?

No, all you need to do is get non-crazy people on the Supreme Court to realize the Second Amendment was about Militias, and not gun ownership.

You should also indict the NRA under the RICO statues. Kind of how we held Operation Rescue to account for all these nuts who bombed abortion clinics, hold the NRA responsible for their actions.

California has strict laws on the books and yet those laws did not stop a mass shooting. No more laws are needed in regards firearms. Just enforce the laws we have and see to the mentally unstable.

It's kind of hard to 'enforce the laws" when you have the NRA Keeping all the loopholes open.

You do have a point about the police not doing their job. Rodger's mother warned the cops that he had gone off the deep end, and they did nothing about it.

 

[Geaux4it]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Well sure they do

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Oooh, Operation Chokepoint? Sounds exciting. Big government and big business collusion? It's liberal fascism, right? Like the government and industry leaders haven't been in collusion for centuries, right? It's all Obama because he's a Marxist Sharia Kenyan, or whatever the fuck you people think.

Draw your guns and kill your government. If you know that your government is a threat to your freedom then why are you sitting on a message board instead of taking the war to them?

We are taking it to them, that's why I'm a NRA life member.

-Geaux

 

[Darkwind]

You have been told over and over. You want to ban firearms, amend the Constitution. All it takes is for you to get a new amendment through both houses of Congress and then passed by 37 States. If as you claim people want the firearm laws to change then how hard can that be?

No, all you need to do is get non-crazy people on the Supreme Court to realize the Second Amendment was about Militias, and not gun ownership.

You should also indict the NRA under the RICO statues. Kind of how we held Operation Rescue to account for all these nuts who bombed abortion clinics, hold the NRA responsible for their actions.

California has strict laws on the books and yet those laws did not stop a mass shooting. No more laws are needed in regards firearms. Just enforce the laws we have and see to the mentally unstable.

It's kind of hard to 'enforce the laws" when you have the NRA Keeping all the loopholes open.

You do have a point about the police not doing their job. Rodger's mother warned the cops that he had gone off the deep end, and they did nothing about it.

You are literally too stupid to be posting here. It is a wonder that you haven't been banned.

 

[Geaux4it]

Where are police starting to take away law-abiding citizens guns?

In the state of California a bill has been introduced AB 1014.

Essentially, it's a bill where a neighbor or anyone for that matter, can petition the courts to have your firearms confiscated.

Lawmakers seek 'gun violence restraining order' after UCSB slayings

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1014_bill_20140528_amended_sen_v94.pdf

18101. (a)**Any person may submit an application to the court,
line 19 on a form designed by the Judicial Council, setting forth the facts
line 20 and circumstances necessitating that a gun violence restraining
line 21 order be issued. A gun violence restraining order shall be issued
94
AB 1014 — 4 —

 

[JoeB131]

Awesome! That's a great idea for a law.

Every time we get one of these nutters- Loughner, Holmes, Lanza - we find out within a day that everyone in their lives knew they were crazy.

 

[Geaux4it]

Awesome! That's a great idea for a law.

Every time we get one of these nutters- Loughner, Holmes, Lanza - we find out within a day that everyone in their lives knew they were crazy.

It's a very dumb idea Joe that should get smoked quicker than a pole in Fat City

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

Awesome! That's a great idea for a law.

Every time we get one of these nutters- Loughner, Holmes, Lanza - we find out within a day that everyone in their lives knew they were crazy.

It's a very dumb idea Joe that should get smoked quicker than a pole in Fat City

-Geaux

NOt really.

Imagine that if Holmes' shrink had called the cops under this law and said, "You know, I think that my patient is about to do something kind of nuts. You'd better make sure he doesn't have any guns."

Jesus, this guy Rodgers posted his insanity on YouTube, and his OWN MOTHER called the cops on him.

The problem with the "Gun Ownership is a right because the Founders didn't know how to write a Militia Amendment Clearly" argument is that when you've established something as a right, there's a reluctance to take guns away from people who just plain shouldn't have them.

I've talked about my neighbor who killed himself four years ago. A few weeks before, he shot out the window of his patio, and when the cops responded, he lied to them that someone had shot in at him. When they used the police skills of Encyclopedia Brown to figure out that was a lie, they STILL Let him keep his gun.

ANd a few weeks later, he shot himself.