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

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by 2aguy, Nov 25, 2017.

  1. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    27,877
    Thanks Received:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +16,960
    they dont even have to shoot someone to lose the right

    they could have passed enough bad checks to get a felony

    then lose the right
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Humorme
    Online

    Humorme Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,033
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings:
    +307

    That reminded me of an incident in my neighborhood.

    A guy gets in a tiff with his wife on the carport. Neighbor calls the cops and he goes to jail for a misdemeanor, but because his stepson witnessed the whole incident, this guy was charged with a felony in addition to the loud argument.

    On top of all of that, the guy had to leave the house and he couldn't stay at my place. His attorney said he could not be in the same house a firearm was in. And, although the guy was found guilty (he actually never disputed the incident) he "lost" his Rights over a purely verbal confrontation. Wonder if we'll be reading about those Dems who like guns denouncing these kinds of laws?????
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    27,877
    Thanks Received:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +16,960

    I have to keep all of my father in laws firearms at my house

    because he being a nice guy let his step son move in after being released from prison having felony

    and having no other place to go

    so Dave gets his rights pinched because someone could not live in civil society
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Liquid Reigns
    Offline

    Liquid Reigns VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2016
    Messages:
    886
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +205
  5. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    27,877
    Thanks Received:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +16,960
  6. Liquid Reigns
    Offline

    Liquid Reigns VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2016
    Messages:
    886
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +205
    So then not all convicted felons should receive their right to posses or own a firearm once released from their sentence. Non-violent felons, once released can already apply to re-instate their civil rights, violent felons should never get those rights re-instated.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  7. Liquid Reigns
    Offline

    Liquid Reigns VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2016
    Messages:
    886
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +205
    The guy has the ability to apply to have his rights restored once he can show or prove he has been rehabilitated, it's already part of our laws. That is one of your spiels, is it not, if they get rehabilitated they should get their rights back. Whats to denounce about the laws already in place? Maybe you should do better research instead of trying to make everything about ideological idiocy on things you don't seem to understand, or you trying to pose as though it was your idea. SMFH
     
  8. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,994
    Thanks Received:
    9,524
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,561

    No....you didn't read the entire ruling.....

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf





    --------------



    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

    --------

    n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,994
    Thanks Received:
    9,524
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,561

    Because each one of those things.....is infringed after the individual breaks the law.....there is no prior restraint. There is no Reasonable time and place restrictions for guns since you don't have multiple individuals trying to use the same public space.........you don't know what you are talking about.
     
  10. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,994
    Thanks Received:
    9,524
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,561

    Wrong.....please, before you comment you might want to actually read Heller, and Mcdonald, and Caetano, and Murdoch.....

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf





    Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

    --------------



    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

    --------

    n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
     

Share This Page