CDZ Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

[MarkDuffy]

Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

Stupid thread. Anti-gun Democrats is a republican myth.

We want responsible gun ownership just like the NRA membership claims. However we want sensible gun responsibility, real background checks, and a limit on firepower so some wacko gunnut cannot murder a zillion people in a couple of minutes.

The problem is not with most of the NRA membership, it is with the crazies and leadership who are the gun swamp.

 

[2aguy]

I don't want "Democrats" or "liberals" to be the ones crafting responsible legislation that covers the 2A.
I want PEOPLE, people from all corners of the spectrum, to work together to craft such legislation.
The NRA deems any and all legislation to be an attack on the amendment, and until we can work past that impasse, it is impossible for conservatives and liberals to even have a sane conversation on the subject.

Guns are here to stay, folks. There's 320 million of them out there, thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to make them just go away. So we're going to have to learn to live civilly amongst those 320 million guns.

As more and more mass murders of innocent civilians make headlines, living civilly is very unlikely. As long as we continue to experience stress when boarding a plane, going to a sporting event or concert, or even going into a public building to do one's civic duty as a jurist, we well continue to be reminded that we do not live in a civil society.

More people are killed by rental trucks than by mass public shooters....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation




Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered 456 injured, in 5 minutes...
Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

 

[2aguy]

As more and more mass murders of innocent civilians make headlines, living civilly is very unlikely. As long as we continue to experience stress when boarding a plane, going to a sporting event or concert, or even going into a public building to do one's civic duty as a jurist, we well continue to be reminded that we do not live in a civil society.

We don't have a choice, because as I said, the guns are not going to just disappear.
We have no choice BUT to learn, and in order for that to happen, we must be willing to make reasoned compromise.
Too many liberals seem to function under some fantasy notion that we can just confiscate all the guns.
Good luck, let me know when the DEA manages to "confiscate all the drugs".
$1.5 Tn and forty years later and there's now more drugs than ever.
That's the size and scope of the issue, thus many liberals are going to have to accept that America is a land of guns and gun owners, who are constitutionally protected.
Too many conservatives have enjoyed a smug reliance on a congressional lobby group that presents a position of non-negotiation, paranoia and dog whistle fundamentalism. The NRA used to be a gun SAFETY organization, I remember when it was.
Well, we're talking gun safety, it would be nice if the NRA climbed down off their high horse, because extremism just invites more extremist backlash.
I do not want extremist backlash, I do not want to be criminalized for owning a firearm.
Most sensible liberals don't want or even expect any kind of confiscation program but for those who do, they should know it will NEVER EVER work no matter how hard they try.

Really? The NRA is the leading gun safety training group in the country, they do more to save lives than all the anti gun groups combined.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have no problem with background checks because I will pass every background check thrown at me.

Quite frankly if you can't pass a background check you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

I am completely against registration though

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

What would you be incriminating yourself with via a background check to purchase a firearm? You merely have the right to keep a weapon, not necessarily a firearm.

the Haynes v. United States ruled that felons are not required to register their illegal guns....because it violates their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....if that is so....and it is...then Background checks also violate the 5th Amendment....

The original claim by Humorme was a 4A claim. My response was to his 4A claim. Background checks are not a violation of the 5A.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

 

[2aguy]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

Yeah, of course...the whole conservative myth of the wimpy weak kneed liberal who is scared of the 2A is just so utterly re-goddam-diculous.
But it's just like trying to disprove conspiracy theories. People need to realize that it's impossible to debunk a conspiracy theory .... that is why it is a conspiracy theory and not fact or logical conclusion.

These people believe that Hillary is a gun grabbing lunatic who is also part of a self sustaining coven of satanists and child prostitution traffickers who work out of a pizzeria basement and there is no evidence to dissuade them otherwise .... remember they discovered that not only was there no child sex ring in the basement of the pizzeria, the place didn't even have a basement at all.
Remember how many Benghazi investigations and they want to investigate some more.

So it is impossible to dissuade a lot of conservatives of the notion that many liberals are actually okay with the 2A and just want some reasonable safety ideas baked in. Far as they're concerned we're ready to outlaw plastic cocktail forks and sharp pieces of paper, because we might get a paper cut from some killer.

And you are wrong....the democrats are now using the courts...so they won't lose any seats in Congress....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[2aguy]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

Those Americans do not know the issue...so polling uninformed people to get the answer you want using questions that do not cover the topic is not convincing....if they understood that the universal background checks that you want will lead to the government registering and then one day confiscating their gun....they would answer differently.....just like they are finding out in Hawaii.....their registration list is now being used to take guns from people with medical marijuana cards...bet they never thought that would happen...

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

 

[2aguy]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

We do not have background checks if there are blatant exemptions to the rules

There are no exemptions to the rule....felons cannot buy, own or carry a gun no matter if there is a gun store, a gun show or a private seller, and we can already arrest them and lock them up for it.....

 

[2aguy]

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

We do not have background checks if there are blatant exemptions to the rules

Funny I have had a check run on every firearm purchase I have ever made

From a private party?

I never buy guns from anyone other than a dealer.

But in many states it is illegal to privately sell a firearm to anyone not legally eligible to buy one.

This is and remains a state issue

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

It is not a loophole.....it is a crime if they sell it to a felon...the felon knows they cannot buy, own or carry a gun.,..they can already be arrested for it. And since criminals do not get their guns from private sellers...it isn't a loophole that they drive trucks through...

 

[2aguy]

Funny I have had a check run on every firearm purchase I have ever made

From a private party?

I never buy guns from anyone other than a dealer.

But in many states it is illegal to privately sell a firearm to anyone not legally eligible to buy one.

This is and remains a state issue

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

What part of in many states it is illegal to do just that did you not understand?

And you don't seem to realize a straw purchase is already a federal crime.

Some states?

Another loophole

Why not require background checks on ALL purchases and be done with it?

Because that requires gun registration.....and Hawaii is now confiscating guns...that their citizens registered in good faith......they are using the registration lists to confiscate guns from people with legal, medical marijuana cards......registration is always followed by confiscation...as we have seen in Germany, Britain, Australia, New York, California, Canada, and now Hawaii....

 

[2aguy]

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[2aguy]

I never buy guns from anyone other than a dealer.

But in many states it is illegal to privately sell a firearm to anyone not legally eligible to buy one.

This is and remains a state issue

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

What part of in many states it is illegal to do just that did you not understand?

And you don't seem to realize a straw purchase is already a federal crime.

Some states?

Another loophole

Why not require background checks on ALL purchases and be done with it?

Actually a straw purchase is a federal crime.

Hey you people are the ones who say states have the right to restrict certain guns or certain size magazines and you're all fine with that but let the states regulate their own gun sales and you get your panties in a twist.

So let's do this. All gun laws are to be federal laws and no state can put additional restrictions on any gun owner than those that are federal law.

But that also means the CCW permit I get will be federal and all states will have to honor it or it means abolishing the CCW permit altogether and allowing anyone legally eligible to own a firearm to carry that firearm as he sees fit.

Then let's pass and enforce some really strict laws on gun crime all to be a minimum of 10 years and up to and including life to be served with no parole

Hard to prove a federal crime when no private purchases are reported

Problem with our gun laws

No...it is quite easy....you catch or stop a felon...if they are found to be a felon with the check on their history by the officer, and if they have a gun on them....they can already be arrested.......that is a federal crime, and is proven on the spot....

 

[2aguy]

Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

Stupid thread. Anti-gun Democrats is a republican myth.

We want responsible gun ownership just like the NRA membership claims. However we want sensible gun responsibility, real background checks, and a limit on firepower so some wacko gunnut cannot murder a zillion people in a couple of minutes.

The problem is not with most of the NRA membership, it is with the crazies and leadership who are the gun swamp.

A rental truck has killed more people in one go than all of the mass public shooters......vehicles kill more people than guns do......so your point is silly.

More people are killed by rental trucks than by mass public shooters....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation




Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered 456 injured, in 5 minutes...
Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You don't have a right to own a vehicle. Therefor a license can be mandated. CCW licenses/permits are not found unconstitutional. A Background check for the purchase of certain weapons is not a violation of the Constitution or your rights either.

 

[2aguy]

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You don't have a right to own a vehicle. Therefor a license can be mandated. CCW licenses/permits are not found unconstitutional. A Background check for the purchase of certain weapons is not a violation of the Constitution or your rights either.

Yes...it is. The Supreme Court has denied Rights in the past only to be reversed....these are cases just like that....

Plessy v. Ferguson

Dread Scott v. Sandford........

You are wrong, they are wrong....

 

[2aguy]

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You don't have a right to own a vehicle. Therefor a license can be mandated. CCW licenses/permits are not found unconstitutional. A Background check for the purchase of certain weapons is not a violation of the Constitution or your rights either.

The Court ruled on this already...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting.

If we're going to start invoking the old segregationist Democrats of the Old South, I'm afraid I have to leave the discussion because I smell the stench of revisionism, the revisionism that ignores the fact that the Southern Strategy of the 1960's turned ALL OF THOSE OLD BIGOTED SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS INTO REPUBLICANS, which they remain TODAY.
I just won't even participate in a debate with someone who pretends to have amnesia and who buys into nonsensical and debunked theories, like equating a poll tax with a license, or like "Nazis were liberal socialists", or "the Earth is flat" or "Jesus wrote the Constitution, but only the first ten amendments."

Have fun, kids. I'm out.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Many Dems want their guns, just won’t vocalize it.

Oh we vocalize it.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You don't have a right to own a vehicle. Therefor a license can be mandated. CCW licenses/permits are not found unconstitutional. A Background check for the purchase of certain weapons is not a violation of the Constitution or your rights either.

Yes...it is. The Supreme Court has denied Rights in the past only to be reversed....these are cases just like that....

Plessy v. Ferguson

Dread Scott v. Sandford........

You are wrong, they are wrong....

Dread Scott wasn't reversed, Congress changed the law (1866 CRA & 1870 INA) , nullifying the courts opinion, and later via a Constitutional Amendment, (14A 1868).

Until the SCOTUS changes their previous/prior rulings, your claims are merely your opinion of how you think things should be. Will these opinions be over ruled? Who knows, but until they are....

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You don't have a right to own a vehicle. Therefor a license can be mandated. CCW licenses/permits are not found unconstitutional. A Background check for the purchase of certain weapons is not a violation of the Constitution or your rights either.

The Court ruled on this already...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You are demonstrating you don't comprehend your link or the fact that it falls in line with what I stated.