Gun Control Is NOT The Answer!

[woodwork201]

This boy is eat up with a dumb ass. Yes, let's arm the murderers and rapists and child molesters. Please, for God's sake stop.

First, they're armed anyway. Gun control only prohibits the law-abiding.

Second, it doesn't matter what you wish about criminals accessing guns, the Constitution forbids infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Does that make the world a more dangerous place? Well, compared to an absolute authoritarian government with brutal law-enforcement standing on every corner, in every office, watching everything you do, yes, probably so. With liberty comes risk and danger. As Benjamin Franklin said, anyone who gives up a little liberty in order to get a little safety deserves neither.

 

[woodwork201]

Ignore list, troll.

Then you surrender and admit you cannot defend your statement with logic or understanding of the Constitution. Run like a coward and hide and, to quote the words of Samuel Adams: Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

 

[M14 Shooter]

And just what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

This forbids infringements.
Not every restriction on the the right to keeps and bear arms in an infringement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are an idiot of un-fucking-believable proportions. Stripping the right IS infringing you fucking moron.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact you're wrong, but there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)Please provide the source of your opinion that the due process clause empowers the government to strip any right from any person by whatever steps or process that the government, itself, decides is "due process".

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
(b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U. S. 473. Pp. 445 U. S. 65-67.

 

[miketx]

How easy is it for a Texan to buy a firearm, take it to Mexico and sell it for a profit?

I don't know, but only criminal scum like you would do that.

 

[okfine]

I don't know, but only criminal scum like you would do that.

Criminal is you breathing.

 

[miketx]

You are an idiot of un-fucking-believable proportions. Stripping the right IS infringing you fucking moron. And due process is a limitation on government power, not a grant of absolute government power.

Please quit pretending to be a 2nd Amendment supporter. you're a gun controller through and through.

I wonder why this idiot wants murderers and rapists and other violent scum to be able to keep and bear arms.

 

[woodwork201]

This forbids infringements.
Not every restriction on the the right to keeps and bear arms in an infringement.

Please google the meaning of infringement.

And then load up your guns and take them to your nearest FBI office and turn them in.

You've already surrendered your right to keep and bear arms; you have already given them permission to take anything you own for any reason they choose. When you reply on a gun rights thread, you're really just asking them to not come take your guns today.

 

[woodwork201]

I'm sorry you don't like the fact you're wrong, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Can you give a single example of any gun control law in existence today that you would agree is infringement?

 

[woodwork201]

I wonder why this idiot wants murderers and rapists and other violent scum to be able to keep and bear arms.

First off, the ban on felons includes felony litterers as well as violent felons so quit lying.

I don't want murderers and rapists to even have access to air, let alone guns. So tell me, do the laws against them having guns prevent them from being murderers and rapists? Do the laws against murder and rape keep them from being murderers and rapists.

Have you ever made the argument against gun control that criminals won't obey the law? Have you ever argued that gun control laws won't work? Do you believe gun control laws do work?

It isn't a question of what I want or don't want. It is a question of what is constitutional and legal. If you accept that the government can do any single thing that is unconstitutional then you must accept that they can do any unconstitutional thing they wish because you've accepted that they are not bound by the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

I wonder why this idiot wants murderers and rapists and other violent scum to be able to keep and bear arms.

And what's with the batwings? Are you a Motorola man?

 

[woodwork201]

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
(b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U. S. 473. Pp. 445 U. S. 65-67.

I didn't ask you what the Court said. To ask the government what the powers of the government are is pretty stupid.

Lewis makes the assumption that Congress is permitted to take the right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress passes a law that says it is so. The validity of that portion of GCA 1968 was not challenged so Lewis wasn't about the power of Congress to make the law, it was about whether the conviction was due process in the enforcement of the law. It wasn't about whether due process itself gave the government the power but only whether the conviction served as due process.

Although the phrase “due process of law” first appeared in the fourteenth century with a very narrow and technical meaning involving the service of appropriate writs, the American Founding generation likely identified the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause with the clauses, prevalent in state constitutions in 1791, that required governmental deprivations of life, liberty, or property to conform to “the law of the land,” as well as appropriate notice and ability to defend oneself in court.​

​

There are certain respects in which “due process of law,” understood as equivalent to “the law of the land,” uncontroversially regulates the substance of governmental action. Most obviously, the core meaning of “law of the land” provisions, dating back to the Magna Carta, is to secure the principle of legality by ensuring that executive and judicial deprivations are grounded in valid legal authority. In this respect, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause limits the substance of executive or judicial action by requiring it to be grounded in law.​

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

The basis of due process for hundreds of years and including when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created was that life, liberty, or property could only be taken when given due process according to the law of the land. That Congress passes a bill and the President signs it does NOT necessarily make it the law of the land, as proven by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

The original intent, as I have explained to you many times, of the entire Bill of Rights and specifically of the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause is that it limits government authority to only be able to do things within the law and not arbitrarily. It is not intended, and to argue that it was is simply ludicrous, to empower the government to pass any law they wish and get any judge or court to apply it to any person taking any right from anyone.

So, even though the Court ruled that the trial was due process does not mean that Congress had the authority to enact a gun ban and the Constitution expressly forbids it. Therefore, the law was not valid and not the established law of the land, constitutionally so due process cannot enforce it.

Would you argue that everything the Court says is the actual meaning and intent of the Constitution? Does the Court ever get it wrong? Or are you a sheep, accepting what the government tells you is the power of the government?

 

[miketx]

I don't want murderers and rapists to even have access to air, let alone guns

Both sides of his mouth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please google the meaning of infringement.

Does a city ordnance that prohibits firing gun straight into the air infringe on the right to keep and bear ams?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can you give a single example of any gun control law in existence today that you would agree is infringement?

Almost all of them.

 

[woodwork201]

Does a city ordnance that prohibits firing gun straight into the air infringe on the right to keep and bear ams?

Mr. You-didn't-answer-my-question appears to be avoiding the question. Define infringe.

The right is not to keep and bear and recklessly shoot arms. The right is to keep and bear arms. Shooting it recklessly is criminal and not protected. Shooting in self-defense is not protected. Are you suggesting that the government can make it illegal to use your M-14 to defend your life?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mr. You-didn't-answer-my-question appears to be avoiding the question. Define infringe.
The right is not to keep and bear and recklessly shoot arms.

So... no. It doesn't.
Thus, not all restrictions are infringements.

 

[woodwork201]

Almost all of them.

So where did Congress get the authority to pass some infringements and not others?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So where did Congress get the authority to pass some infringements and not others?

Congress does not have the authority to enact infringements, as all the powers of Congress are modified by the 2nd Amendment.