CDZ Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

[cnm]

America would rather see it's children dying in a pool of blood than to ever give up it's guns

C'mon, be fair. Other people's children.

 

[rightwinger]

What guns are you talking about officer ... no guns here ...



.

Easy enough
Your neighbors will turn you in
But once you get caught, you get sent to a FEMA Death Camp never to be heard of.

Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?

Because like all lawbreakers, you can’t keep your mouth shut.
You will want to actually fire your guns someday.....why else have them?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think Americans will turn in their guns....There are 300 million of them

But I think that when Dad and Grandpa die, their treasured gun collection will be passed down to children and grandchildren who really don't want them

I got an Uzi and a .357 lever action rifle when my Old Man passed.

There are a lot of legacy weapons out there

Many children and grandchildren don’t want them

 

[BlackSand]

Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?

Because like all lawbreakers, you can’t keep your mouth shut.
You will want to actually fire your guns someday.....why else have them?

Keep our mouths shut ... Shoot our firearms someday ...

Hell ... The neighbors bring their firearms over and we shoot skeet and targets in the yard.
You seem to be under the false impressions people don't own and shoot firearms.

Of course I could understand that if you live in a city and don't have any land.

.

 

[PredFan]

What guns are you talking about officer ... no guns here ...



.

Easy enough
Your neighbors will turn you in
But once you get caught, you get sent to a FEMA Death Camp never to be heard of.

No, my neighbors will not. The very few who know, also have guns and those that don't know....don't know.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?

Because like all lawbreakers, you can’t keep your mouth shut.
You will want to actually fire your guns someday.....why else have them?

Keep our mouths shut ... Shoot our firearms someday ...

Hell ... The neighbors bring their firearms over and we shoot skeet and targets in the yard.
You seem to be under the false impressions people don't own and shoot firearms.

Of course I could understand that if you live in a city and don't have any land.

.

And those shots tend to make a noise.....a noise that carries for over a mile
Not wise when you try to conceal you have an illegal weapon

Semi automatic fire is easy to distinguish

 

[BlackSand]

And those shots tend to make a noise.....a noise that carries for over a mile
Not wise when you try to conceal you have an illegal weapon

Semi automatic fire is easy to distinguish

Yes firearms make noise and it carries for miles ... It's uber wise.

That way more people and law enforcement officers know we are boiling crawfish, frying fish or have other good eats.
They can bring their firearms and families to join the festivities.

I mean really dude ... The only time I conceal a firearm is when I don't want to make bedwetters like you cry.

.

 

[WinterBorn]

I doubt there will be any significant national legislation that will require gun owners to turn in their guns.

More likely it will be something like the "Assault weapon" ban Clinton put in place.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What guns are you talking about officer ... no guns here ...



.

Easy enough
Your neighbors will turn you in
But once you get caught, you get sent to a FEMA Death Camp never to be heard of.

Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?

Because like all lawbreakers, you can’t keep your mouth shut.
You will want to actually fire your guns someday.....why else have them?

What a tard.

 

[WinterBorn]

I doubt there will be any significant national legislation that will require gun owners to turn in their guns.

More likely it will be something like the "Assault weapon" ban Clinton put in place.

 

[Humorme]

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

This is the whole point the left ignores.

AFTER the debates and AFTER the Constitution was ratified and AFTER the issue of the Right to keep and bear Arms had been litigated and United States Supreme Court weighed in then THAT IS the law.

When the United States Supreme Court did not like their previous rulings, I contend that they did not, under our Constitution, have the authority to begin that process of unilaterally declaring themselves to be final arbiters of what the laws is - thereby negating the need for a legislature AND usurping our Rights, as a people, to be the last word on the subject.

The United States Supreme Court has all but changed the Republic to a Democracy and nullified the Bill of Rights.

 

[Humorme]

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

In post 169 -- CDZ - Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns? -- I expounded upon my assertion that the denotation of "law abiding" isn't debatable. Nothing has changed.

As is so for any individual, upon (1) a jurist's determination that the statute is constitutional and (2) the court's determination, given the evidence presented, that a defendant did indeed perform the actus reus and possess the mens rea needed to be held criminally culpable, yes, so it is that public servants can be called law abiding or law breaking, just as can anyone else.

As goes the matter of a public servant's violating their oath of office, well, the extent to which their doing so constitutes breaking the law depends on whether upholding it is by law required. I think military servants are legally bound to that oaths of office. Other public servants, however, may not be so formally bound, and those who aren't, if they break their oath of office can be said to have derelicted their duty and/or breached a public trust, but not not to have broken the law.

There is in the law a grey area whereby something must by law happen, however, violations of the code section isn't an offense/breaking of the law. Such statutes are readily identified by their lacking penalty provisions. The non-Presidential oath of office is one such law. Individuals taking that oath of office must, to receive the appointment and carry it out, take the oath as noted, but so averring is all they must do to be legally compliant.

AFAIK, the Oath of Office Accountability Act has not been enacted.

Your position was considered and studied. It has found to be false.

The courts had a problem with jury nullification and so they, not the legislatures, declared it to be illegal. So, the courts can be wrong too. Because the United States Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate from the bench, Trump nominated Gorsuch and I hope that he will bring some sanity to that body.

 

[Humorme]

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"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 inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"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."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.

No, it doesn't. What the SCOTUS opinion indicates is that if one is found in violation of an extant law, if one can show in a court of law that the law one is charged with violating is unconstitutional, one cannot be found guilty of violating it.

I agree with the Court's jurisprudence (foundational legal theory) and with its practical implications. That said, one of those implications is that one must prevail in making one's case about the unconstitutionality of the law one is charged with violating. If one does not and one is found guilty of violating it, one is not law abiding.

Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination. Accordingly, one who acts in violation of an extant law because s/he asserts (to him-/herself or publicly) the law itself unconstitutional must obtain a jurist's concordance with that assertion. The process for doing so entails either submitting an amicus brief or being a defendant and using and pursuing an "unconstitutionality of the statute" defense.

My replies are being deleted. There is no honest discussion when censorship and then another poster wanting to bully me are allowed. I can't fight with my hands tied behind my back.

Are you asserting that something you penned in response to comments in this thread has been deleted? I can say only that of your remarks that I have here read and replied to, none have been deleted.

I can forward the message I got from the mods alerting me to the fact that they did delete my response.

YOU made the inference that I was advocating disobeying laws simply because I disagree with them. You know better.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

This is the whole point the left ignores.

AFTER the debates and AFTER the Constitution was ratified and AFTER the issue of the Right to keep and bear Arms had been litigated and United States Supreme Court weighed in then THAT IS the law.

When the United States Supreme Court did not like their previous rulings, I contend that they did not, under our Constitution, have the authority to begin that process of unilaterally declaring themselves to be final arbiters of what the laws is - thereby negating the need for a legislature AND usurping our Rights, as a people, to be the last word on the subject.

The United States Supreme Court has all but changed the Republic to a Democracy and nullified the Bill of Rights.

When the United States Supreme Court did not like their previous rulings, I contend that they did not, under our Constitution, have the authority to begin that process of unilaterally declaring themselves to be final arbiters of what the laws is - thereby negating the need for a legislature AND usurping our Rights, as a people, to be the last word on the subject.

What is one to say to that? You can truly so contend.

Even as you do so construe the role of the SCOTUS, the fact remains that the verity of the SCOTUS jurists' authority and role as final arbiters of what at any given moment is and is not the apt interpretation of the variously vague and/or ambiguous language of the Constitution, what is referred to in jurisprudence as "broad" language, was anticipated and expected well before the Constitution was itself penned, let alone ratified.

And, no, I'm not here going to dive into expounding upon what every modern (mid-20th century or later) American high school student surely had to study and about which they likely had to write several essays. Instead, I'm going to point you to the same stuff you surely were called decades ago to read and some analysis that high schoolers likely never read, but that ones of a mind to discuss the matter of strict and loose construction may have:

• Federalist 78
• Federalist 81
• Marbury v. Madison
• McCulloch v. Maryland
• James Madison and Judicial Review
  
• The Supreme Court and Authority Acceptance

Suffice to say that your contention, no matter what I or anyone else, including you, think of its intrinsic merits simply doesn't hold water given the state in which the U.S. after the above noted cases were decided and hundreds of years of subsequent acceptance of the principles therein promulgated have been democratically accepted, implicitly and explicitly. Times change and the interpretation of the Constitution with them. There may again, as there did in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, come a time when your contention that be illegitimate SCOTUS jurists' authority to interpret our laws, of which the Constitution comprises part of them, but that time has yet to come, and I don't see it as nigh.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

In post 169 -- CDZ - Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns? -- I expounded upon my assertion that the denotation of "law abiding" isn't debatable. Nothing has changed.

As is so for any individual, upon (1) a jurist's determination that the statute is constitutional and (2) the court's determination, given the evidence presented, that a defendant did indeed perform the actus reus and possess the mens rea needed to be held criminally culpable, yes, so it is that public servants can be called law abiding or law breaking, just as can anyone else.

As goes the matter of a public servant's violating their oath of office, well, the extent to which their doing so constitutes breaking the law depends on whether upholding it is by law required. I think military servants are legally bound to that oaths of office. Other public servants, however, may not be so formally bound, and those who aren't, if they break their oath of office can be said to have derelicted their duty and/or breached a public trust, but not not to have broken the law.

There is in the law a grey area whereby something must by law happen, however, violations of the code section isn't an offense/breaking of the law. Such statutes are readily identified by their lacking penalty provisions. The non-Presidential oath of office is one such law. Individuals taking that oath of office must, to receive the appointment and carry it out, take the oath as noted, but so averring is all they must do to be legally compliant.

AFAIK, the Oath of Office Accountability Act has not been enacted.

Your position was considered and studied. It has found to be false.

The courts had a problem with jury nullification and so they, not the legislatures, declared it to be illegal. So, the courts can be wrong too. Because the United States Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate from the bench, Trump nominated Gorsuch and I hope that he will bring some sanity to that body.

Seriously? You put me through all that only to have no other rebuttal than to introduce the esoterica of jury nullification? Really?

 

[OldLady]

The feds already have laws regulating weapons.

Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Gun law in the United States - Wikipedia

Regulation does not necessarily mean denial ...

Just like it is a common misconception that a private citizen cannot own a machine gun.
That's not true ... It's just extremely difficult and expensive.

.

Exactly. Regulation doesn't mean denial.

No law, nothing, will stop a person who has chosen to go on a rampage (purchased legally or stole the weapon won't matter). The Florida shooter already owned the weapons prior to any calls to the FBI or the school regarding his threats. The whole point is the FBI failed to investigate the issue and prevent it from happening, and the school officer pussed out. More "regulations" will not stop future incidents.

Yes, there need to be "regulations" so the FBI and local law enforcement can act when a person who is regularly violent starts threatening to shoot people. That was prior to his purchasing guns, but the FBI and the current regulations can do nothing until "regulations" are put in place allowing them to.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"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 inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"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."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.

No, it doesn't. What the SCOTUS opinion indicates is that if one is found in violation of an extant law, if one can show in a court of law that the law one is charged with violating is unconstitutional, one cannot be found guilty of violating it.

I agree with the Court's jurisprudence (foundational legal theory) and with its practical implications. That said, one of those implications is that one must prevail in making one's case about the unconstitutionality of the law one is charged with violating. If one does not and one is found guilty of violating it, one is not law abiding.

Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination. Accordingly, one who acts in violation of an extant law because s/he asserts (to him-/herself or publicly) the law itself unconstitutional must obtain a jurist's concordance with that assertion. The process for doing so entails either submitting an amicus brief or being a defendant and using and pursuing an "unconstitutionality of the statute" defense.

My replies are being deleted. There is no honest discussion when censorship and then another poster wanting to bully me are allowed. I can't fight with my hands tied behind my back.

Are you asserting that something you penned in response to comments in this thread has been deleted? I can say only that of your remarks that I have here read and replied to, none have been deleted.

I can forward the message I got from the mods alerting me to the fact that they did delete my response.

YOU made the inference that I was advocating disobeying laws simply because I disagree with them. You know better.

Let me be clear, you'll need to carefully read and consider my remarks if you are going to engage with me in a discussion. You need to do that because I accord to you (and anyone to whom I respond in writing) the courtesy of carefully reading and considering their remarks.

Now, having said that, let me also be clear: I didn't not assert or imply that you misrepresented the verity of your post(s) being deleted. I asked you a question and attested to what be the nature of my awareness of what you have posted and your posts in this thread that I've read to which I replied. All that was needed in response to the question I asked is "yes" or "no." Given the precision of the question I asked, I'd have fully understood what to take from either answer.

Accepting that a moderator deleted a post of yours that I have neither read nor responded to, what difference does it make, for his/her doing so did not result in my posting comments about remarks you made that are now gone.

My suggestion to you is that you find a CDZ-compliant way to express whatever notion(s) was in the post(s) that was deleted.

 

[Humorme]

Your quoting of the SCOTUS doesn't mean you get to decide what laws are to be followed or not.

So, why does the Supreme Court get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it will uphold and which it will not?

Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter. I have to be long winded, but this is well worth your time.

The Declaration of Independence states:

"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"

That idea meant something to the founding fathers and the citizenry of the time. Consider this:

“[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity” - (George Mason, founding father)

What Mason said with respect to these natural rights (sic) is the exact definition of unalienable Rights.

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” (Samuel Adams, founding father)

No honest person can ever claim that the founding fathers would have placed their posterity in a legal position so that government could tyrannize the people and we did not have options beyond complaining about the situation. Quite the converse is true. Consider these statements by the founders:

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

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments:
Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States

America was founded on the presupposition that you have unalienable Rights. The earliest court decisions were consistent with what the founders had written about the Constitution. The Right to keep and bear Arms was a Right that was not subject to whether the government liked it or not.

That is part 1 of my response. My next post will clear this up for you once and for all.

 

[Humorme]

The left likes to put up a good smoke and mirror show, but the reality is, ALL of the earliest court decisions supported the idea that our God given, unalienable, inherent, natural Rights were not subject to their review. A few that come to mind was ..."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! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.” (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) )


A few years later, Texas addressed the issue and 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)


There it is. The Second Amendment guarantee is absolute. The Citizen did not get the Right from the State. Let me share one more court ruling with you before I make my point:


“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)


These, in my opinion, constitute what the law IS because:


A) It expresses the INTENT of the founders

B) Those decisions confirm that the government does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms; that it pre-existed

C) That the founders warned against this process of incrementally changing the laws via the United States Supreme Court.


"Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and Unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

You don’t need a degree from Harvard to understand that the laws we have today regarding gun control are 180 degrees opposite of what the Constitution meant when the Bill of Rights were ratified. Yet, the Second Amendment says the exact thing it did when it was ratified.

The people have to hold the Courts accountable for their actions. The United States Supreme Court does not have the authority to pick and choose what laws they will and will not interpret in accordance with the Constitution. If they don’t like the Second Amendment, then they should quit the Court and start an effort to amend the Constitution

 

[Humorme]

The feds already have laws regulating weapons.

Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Gun law in the United States - Wikipedia

Regulation does not necessarily mean denial ...

Just like it is a common misconception that a private citizen cannot own a machine gun.
That's not true ... It's just extremely difficult and expensive.

.

Exactly. Regulation doesn't mean denial.

No law, nothing, will stop a person who has chosen to go on a rampage (purchased legally or stole the weapon won't matter). The Florida shooter already owned the weapons prior to any calls to the FBI or the school regarding his threats. The whole point is the FBI failed to investigate the issue and prevent it from happening, and the school officer pussed out. More "regulations" will not stop future incidents.

Yes, there need to be "regulations" so the FBI and local law enforcement can act when a person who is regularly violent starts threatening to shoot people. That was prior to his purchasing guns, but the FBI and the current regulations can do nothing until "regulations" are put in place allowing them to.

The FBI could have investigated and IF they had, there was plenty to sustain an arrest for terroristic threats.

Furthermore, if people were working with me (I'm doing more than keyboard pecking), ALL of Cruz's misdeeds could have been put into a single database. There a county official could have sent DFACS in to inspect the home he lived in, alert his parents to Cruz's activities and try to determine if an intervention was necessary.

Cruz could have undergone an IQ test, been assessed by two different mental health officials and they could have determined that he needed help.

In any event, NOBODY seems to want to hold the system accountable for its failures and incompetency.