|
Quote:
The second Amendment does not define arms for a reason you obviously don’t understand. Perhaps you have been led to believe a ban of semi automatic black rifles with scary military like features that supposedly makes it an assault weapon reduces deaths somehow yet it has been done and proven not to reduce deaths no matter what lies you have been fed. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Strong majorities of Americans from across the political spectrum support laws that allow family members or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person who is seen to be a risk to themselves or others, according to a new APM Research Lab/Guns & America/Call To Mind survey.
Some opposition is likely born out of the general rhetoric around the gun debate related to "serious distrust" and "seizing guns," Swearer explained. One Colorado-based gun rights group, for instance, refers to the state's recently passed red flag law as a "Gun Confiscation Scheme." it always go back to that |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't have a problem with how the Amendment or the Constitution as a whole is written. I understand "why" the Constitution was written. Progressives no long believe that "why" is valid. That is why they prefer that the Constitution should be scrapped. Of course, it is not feasible at this time to do that, so they peck away at it by "interpretation." |
When the NRA and big money owns our policies it doesn’t even matter that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Quote:
|
LOL. Figured I'd poke my head in here and see how the gun debate is going . . . I read the thread and nothing has changed in the months since I was last here.
Quote:
There is but one constitutionally, legally and historically correct statement in that article; it is found in the first sentence: "The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun." The FRAMERS knew they were not creating anything with the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right to arms is a pre-existing right, not created, given, granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment. "We the People" don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there; "We the People" possess the right because We never surrendered any aspect of the right, never conferred any power to government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. IOW, We don't posses the right because of what the 2ndA says, we posses the right because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say. That you fail to comprehend this foundational tenet means you will never compose a single thought about guns and gun rights that conforms with the Constitution. You will continue to say stuff like this, not realizing you are totally wrong in your thinking . . . What a purposefully wrong approach you take. Please show me the words in the body of the Constitution that grants to Congress the power to ban any guns . . . Read the body of the Constitution to discern what the government can do, not the 2nd Amendment to try to discrn what the citizen is -allowed- to do. |
Quote:
It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the government can ban my "semi auto high velocity assault weapon". That's the singular truth you need to accept. Those who desire to ban them should make the plea that government should be allowed to ban them (with a constitutional amendment). Problem is, you are pushing against the clear and unambiguous criteria established by SCOTUS that determines if a type of arm is outside the reach of government. Of all the types of guns currently available to the general public, those deemed to be "assault weapons" with their standard issue magazines, (typically holding 20-30 cartridges), fit that protection criteria better than any other type of firearm. |
Quote:
Original, fundamental rights (and the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right -- see McDonald v Chicago) are not subject to the ignorant whims of public opinion. The "majority" does not get to impose its disdain of certain rights on anyone, simply because they are the majority. "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
you should come around more often like most 2 a supporters here you are the only ones talking confiscation or bans .. and spewing this god given aspect to 2A :rotflmao: |
Quote:
You say that as if you feel the federal government exceeding the powers granted to it under the Constitution is no big deal. That's the crux of the issue. You feel that the only thing that matters is that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed . . . You feel that such a "mandate" from a majority demands the government act without regard to what the government is actually allowed to do . . . and you expect me to believe you when you say there's no threat to my rights. You're funny! |
Quote:
That's the singular truth you need to accept.:kewl: |
|
Quote:
And the spring from which your incorrect ideas flow, has been discovered. You are so profoundly backwards in your thinking I realize now it is probably useless to even try to correct you. How does your position mesh with the 10th Amendment? I'll state my argument anyway, just for those who might be interested. The specific enumeration of powers in the Constitution limits the powers of the government . . . IOW, the feds can only do what the Constitution says it can do. If it ain't there it can not be done! That correct "singular truth" was the main reason the Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. They believed it was dangerous to add declarations that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to do those things . . . that it was absurd to provide against the abuse of an authority which was ever granted to government!* They also argued that the attempt to list rights was not only impossible, it was also dangerous. Our rights are innumerable, they are everything not conferred to government through the Constitution and someone, someday might assume and argue that that was the entire list of rights and something not listed was actually under the domain of government. Of course the Federalists "lost" the argument and a bill of rights was added but Madison, being a Federalist, composed and proposed two provisions that codified Federalist argument against the bill of rights into the Constitution. They became the 9th and 10th Amendments: Amendment IXDo you recognize how profoundly wrong your thinking is? * Federalist 84, arguing against adding a bill of rights: "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.". |
Quote:
And the absurdity of you arguing that the 2nd Amendment right to arms is cemented in the 18th Century by using the 1st Amendment secured right to hit keys on an electronic device and sending the words across time and space on waves of light and having them appear on my screen, is lost on you. Please rewrite your message using quill pen on parchment and give it to a postal worker and have him deliver it to me on horseback. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you believe that your personal opinion on what is and is not an impact on the right, (that you obviously have no understanding of), is the deciding principle for determining constitutionality? I'll spare myself the laugh cramps asking you about free speech. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
And all you ever do is pontificate and spew until somebody challenges you and then to resort to personal attacks, red herrings and then finally, meek abandonment of the discussion . . . all mouth and no trousers. |
Quote:
Any discussion of what the government should do while ignoring what the government can do is mental masturbation. The problem with 'universal background checks' is that anti-gun people will be writing the legislation. The stated and indisputably worthwhile goal of improving the system limiting gun access for prohibited people will be hijacked because the people writing the law have a general overriding hostility for gun rights. The other problem is that it will become a gun and owner registry, it really can't be avoided. I would support actually prosecuting people for selling to a prohibited person and opening the NICS to private citizens. Private citizens selling a gun should be able to make a phone call, punch in the buyer's ID #'s and get an approved / denied code for the sale. As far as cut and paste goes, what is wrong with reading original sources and actual quotes from SCOTUS etc. that state the law? Is supported argument really scorned on this site? . |
As I predicted, you can’t say why those changes impact your ability to arm yourself, tough trying to win an argument you can’t possibly win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
No you missed my original point, in that yet another mass shooting gets Trump talking momentarily about universal background checks, only to reverse course on talking to the NRA, which prompted the usual NRA talking points by RR. To which I asked why universal background checks and closing show and private sale loopholes would affect anyone’s ability to legally purchase legal arms under the 2A. So how does he or anyone win that very pointed question, they can’t unless they need those loopholes to secure those arms. So RR and others spew the usual NRA talking points, it’s an old argument, but explain to me the harm done by the background checks and closing loopholes?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
That sounds about as sensible as only allowing United States citizens the right to vote in our elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com