CDZ Gun law proposals, I oppose all of them, tell me how they actually would work.

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by 2aguy, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    77,067
    Thanks Received:
    14,149
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +58,353
    Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws

    This is not true...not even in the slightest bit true.

    It is a felony to use a gun to commit rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping in all 57 states. (using the obama number.) It is against the law in all 57 states for a convicted felon to buy, own or carry a gun......so you are just wrong.

    The problem we have is the patchwork of democrat controlled voting districts, where they allow repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail over and over again. I have posted the articles on this from state after state, where democrat judges, prosecutors and politicians release gun offenders even after 2nd and 3rd gun possession arrests....and then, released on bail or their own recognizance, they go out and murder someone. I-bonds for gun offenses have released over 70% of those arrested for felony gun possession.

    If we have a patchwork of anything, it is because of democrats allowing gun offenders out of jail and prison.

    Please....explain to us why the democrats keep doing that?
     
  2. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    25,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +8,000
    You don't need any of those things unless you operate a car on public roads.
    So...?
     
  3. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    25,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +8,000
    Laws that allow for the law abiding to freely own, carry and use firearms in self defense? Certainly.
    Welcome to federalism.
    You cannot show this to be true.
     
  4. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    Gun ownership is a right under the Constitution. The courts have made that very clear.
     
  5. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia. I have no idea how you regulate something without regulations. SCOTUS, which is empowered by the Constitution to resolve questions of constitutionality, has consistently held that such laws are constitutional.
     
  6. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    35,580
    Thanks Received:
    6,286
    Trophy Points:
    1,240
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +50,438
    You are confused in two ways.

    First of all the term "well regulated" at the time the Bill of Rights was written meant well provisioned. It did not mean to be regulated with regulations like we we may use the term today.

    The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

    "In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"


    Second, as far as the term "militia" goes, the Heller case put aside any doubt that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right just like the right of religion and right of free speech.

    The problem with the courts in the US is that they have not applied the strict scrutiny test to the right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutionally protected individual rights and that is despicable.

    My personal opinion is that there should not be any laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It is none of the filthy government's business. If I commit a crime with a firearm I should be held accountable but the government should never infringe upon my right to keep and bear any arm.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  7. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    25,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +8,000
    However, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    You can regulate the militia all you want, so long as you do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
     
  8. Blues Man
    Offline

    Blues Man Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,502
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    It can be revoked with due process.

    We have a codified list of the people who cannot legally possess firearms
     
  9. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    It does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with a militia. Heller made that clear. However, that does not mean - and Heller was clear on this as well - that the state does not have the ability to regulate that. Restricting the nature of arms, specific categories of individuals, who may or may not conceal carry are all within the purview of state control. This is well established by the supreme court. And it is SCOTUS which determines what is or is not against the Constitution, not the individual citizen or any other branch of government.

    I would point out that the 2nd amendment refers to arms. That word includes far more than firearms. A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
     
  10. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    The words regulated and nourished were both in existence at the time the Constitution was written. If the founders wrote regulated, they meant regulated.

    I agree with you on Heller and did not mean to say that the right was intrinsically connected to membership in a militia. But you did not go far enough into Heller. The court also said:

    "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

    One can certainly disagree with the court's opinion. However, that does not change that, under the Constitution, it is SCOTUS that is the final word on the subject. So the fact remains that such laws are not unconstitutional.
     

Share This Page