Obama's plan for gun control...

[Liberty]

Syphon no one is trying to prove that infringement is taking away...what we are saying, and if you knew fucking English, is that the constitution prohibits infringements of this right, and taking away is obviously the extreme form of an infringement. Christ. It is NOT rocket science, pal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

look at japan, they have the most restrictive guns laws in the world, and the number of gun related deaths for 2011 was "the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). "
Gun Deaths - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors
The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

this proves gun control works and less people die.... but gun nuts dont like facts.

I see you've given up on trying to argue against the idea that licensing, registration and background checks are infringements.
Good to see you know when to cut your losses and run.

this proves gun control works and less people die....

I also see you don't understand the fundamental difference between causation and correlation. Google is your friend.

BTW... according to the CDC, the number is 10.3/100k.
WONDER Message

you never answered me dumbshit.

Yawn. Post 141.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/212154-obamas-plan-for-gun-control-10.html#post4935762

now address the rest of my argument. tell me how you can own tanks, automatic weapons, RPG's and AT4's

You'll need to first address mine, which you have, as of yet, utterly failed to do.
I'm -more- than interested in seeing your counter, and making the case for the compelling state interest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Syphon no one is trying to prove that infringement is taking away...what we are saying, and if you knew fucking English, is that the constitution prohibits infringements of this right, and taking away is obviously the extreme form of an infringement. Christ. It is NOT rocket science, pal.

Aww... you might bruise his little ego!

 

[Liberty]

As a constitutional scholar to an extent myself, I find that the only way (besides a constitutional amendment) for the government, if it desired to disarm the public in a quasi-constitutional manner would be through executive order. Unfortunately the first sentence of Article 2,

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. "

some would infer, as meaning the President would have the power to act in an "executive" manner. If you pull out some syntax...that means basically, some would argue (not me), that the President could, in the vein of a Locke-ian authority in defending the "public good" could null firearm ownership. It is a stretch though...but that's the only thing that I see possibly happening, since this authority has been exercised before and regularly. Example: Presidential Pardons

Further reading:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s16.html

Patrick Henry freaking out like only Patrick Henry could:

. . . Let us consider whether the federal executive be wisely constructed. This is a point in which the constitution of every state differs widely as to the mode of electing their executives, and as to the time of continuing them in office. In some states the executive is perpetually eligible. In others he is rendered ineligible after a given period. They are generally elected by the legislature. It cannot be objected to the federal executive that the power is executed by one man. All the enlightened part of mankind agree that the superior despatch, secrecy, and energy, with which one man can act, render it more politic to vest the power of executing the laws in one man, than in any number of men. How is the President elected? By the people--on the same day throughout the United States--by those whom the people please. There can be no concert between the electors. The votes are sent sealed to Congress. What are his powers? To see the laws executed. Every executive in America has that power. He is also to command the army: this power also is enjoyed by the executives of the different states. He can handle no part of the public money except what is given him by law. At the end of four years, he may be turned out of his office. If he misbehaves he may be impeached, and in this case he will never be reëlected. I cannot conceive how his powers can be called formidable. Both houses are a check upon him. He can do no important act without the concurrence of the Senate. In England, the sword and purse are in different hands. The king has the power of the sword, and the purse is in the hands of the people alone. Take a comparison between this and the government of England.

It will prove in favor of the American principle. In England, the king declares war. In America, Congress must be consulted. In England, Parliament gives money. In America, Congress does it. There are consequently more powers in the hands of the people, and greater checks upon the executive here, than in England. Let him pardon me, when I say he is mistaken in passing a eulogium on the English government to the prejudice of this plan. Those checks which he says are to be found in the English government, are also to be found here. Our government is founded upon real checks. He ought to show there are no checks in it. Is this the case? Who are your representatives? They are chosen by the people for two years. Who are your senators? They are chosen by the legislatures, and a third of them go out of the Senate at the end of every second year. They may also be impeached. There are no better checks upon earth. Are there better checks in the government of Virginia? There is not a check in the one that is not in the other. The difference consists in the length of time, and in the nature of the objects. Any man may be impeached here--so he may there. If the people of Virginia can remove their delegates for misbehavior, by electing other men at the end of the year, so, in like manner, the federal representatives may be removed at the end of two, and the senators at the end of six years.

But I digress...firearms are unequivocally necessary for the citizenry to posses, less tyranny truly sweeps our country. That is the bottom line.

 

[Nosmo King]

I see you have failed to address the issue put to you, yet again.

Certain weapons do not belong in the hands of the American people. That's the cold hard truth.

Militias should be well regulated, just like it says in the Second Amendment.

And if steps toward those ends are chaffing you, that's too bad. There are truths to be addressed and lives to be saved.

When the call to arms goes out and the militia is formed will your point carry validity.

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As a constitutional scholar to an extent myself, I find that the only way (besides a constitutional amendment) for the government, if it desired to disarm the public in a quasi-constitutional manner would be through executive order. Unfortunately the first sentence of Article 2, some would infer, as meaning the President would have the power to act in an "executive" manner. If you pull out some syntax...that means basically, some would argue (not me), that the President could, in the vein of a Locke-ian authority in defending the "public good" could null firearm ownership. It is a stretch though...but that's the only thing that could happen imo.

The constitutionality of executive orders are judged on three levels:

-Those mosly likely to be Constitutional are those linked to a specific power of the President and pursuant to relevant legislation
-Less likely are those linked to a specific power of the President alone.
-Least likely are those that have no legislative authority nor pursuant to any specific power of the Presdient.

And, of course, any legislation/executive order than runs contrary to the Constitution itself can (and hopefully will) be struck, regardless of the underlying powers.

So, no, the President cannot really nullify the private ownership of firearms and the protections affordrd to that right by the 2nd thru an EO.

 

[wjmacguffin]

As a constitutional scholar to an extent myself, I find that the only way (besides a constitutional amendment) for the government, if it desired to disarm the public in a quasi-constitutional manner would be through executive order. Unfortunately the first sentence of Article 2,

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. "

some would infer, as meaning the President would have the power to act in an "executive" manner. If you pull out some syntax...that means basically, some would argue (not me), that the President could, in the vein of a Locke-ian authority in defending the "public good" could null firearm ownership. It is a stretch though...but that's the only thing that I see possibly happening, since this authority has been exercised before. Example: Presidential Pardons

I disagree. It would take a law passed by Congress "limiting" the right, signed by the president and approved by the Supreme Court. Congress and the SC would challenge any president's executive order to take away gun control, but if it's a law that the SC says is constitutional, then it sticks until another law replaces it.

While highly unlikely, it is possible if framed as a "reasonable restriction" in the mode of the old Fire in a Crowded Theater limit on constitutional speech.

 

[Liberty]

Certain weapons do not belong in the hands of the American people. That's the cold hard truth.

Militias should be well regulated, just like it says in the Second Amendment.

And if steps toward those ends are chaffing you, that's too bad. There are truths to be addressed and lives to be saved.

When the call to arms goes out and the militia is formed will your point carry validity.

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

 

[Liberty]

As a constitutional scholar to an extent myself, I find that the only way (besides a constitutional amendment) for the government, if it desired to disarm the public in a quasi-constitutional manner would be through executive order. Unfortunately the first sentence of Article 2,

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. "

some would infer, as meaning the President would have the power to act in an "executive" manner. If you pull out some syntax...that means basically, some would argue (not me), that the President could, in the vein of a Locke-ian authority in defending the "public good" could null firearm ownership. It is a stretch though...but that's the only thing that I see possibly happening, since this authority has been exercised before. Example: Presidential Pardons

I disagree. It would take a law passed by Congress "limiting" the right, signed by the president and approved by the Supreme Court. Congress and the SC would challenge any president's executive order to take away gun control, but if it's a law that the SC says is constitutional, then it sticks until another law replaces it.

While highly unlikely, it is possible if framed as a "reasonable restriction" in the mode of the old Fire in a Crowded Theater limit on constitutional speech.

It's amazing how useless the judicial branch has become. From defending to destroying the constitution overnight.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When the call to arms goes out and the militia is formed will your point carry validity.

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

he's a troll - expect no less.

 

[Syphon]

Syphon no one is trying to prove that infringement is taking away...what we are saying, and if you knew fucking English, is that the constitution prohibits infringements of this right, and taking away is obviously the extreme form of an infringement. Christ. It is NOT rocket science, pal.

read M14's post he has already claimed it is. maybe you should so a little reading before open that spew-hole you call a mouth.

 

[Full-Auto]

Certain weapons do not belong in the hands of the American people. That's the cold hard truth.

Militias should be well regulated, just like it says in the Second Amendment.

And if steps toward those ends are chaffing you, that's too bad. There are truths to be addressed and lives to be saved.

When the call to arms goes out and the militia is formed will your point carry validity.

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

That may be the case for certain weapons, But that authority was taken not given.

Then consider since we have a standing army, they are well regulated. Which has nothing to do with individual ownership of any type.

 

[Nosmo King]

When the call to arms goes out and the militia is formed will your point carry validity.

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

I think it's abhorring that the gun nuts are oblivious to the first half of that amendment.

 

[Full-Auto]

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

I think it's abhorring that the gun nuts are oblivious to the first half of that amendment.

Point it out and we will tear it up.

 

[Nosmo King]

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

he's a troll - expect no less.

I'm not a troll. I'm a very reluctant gun owner.

I know how it must thrill you to own guns. That's okay. Just don't use them irresponsibly.

I take the responsibility of gun ownership very seriously. It was a very great decision on my part to introduce the hazard of a gun to my household. I only wish it was taken as seriously by others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While highly unlikely, it is possible if framed as a "reasonable restriction" in the mode of the old Fire in a Crowded Theater limit on constitutional speech.

The prohibition of falsely yelling fire in a theater is based in the idea that doing so wrongfully puts people in imminent danger of being harmed.

Indeed, most restrictions on the right to free speech -- the prohibition of libel/slander, the use of 'fighting words' or inciting a riot - are all based on the premise that you do not have the right to use speech that directly injures others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The constitutionality of ALL gun control laws should be judge by that standard - if your act does not cause actual harm or place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, then a limitation on that act violates the Constitution.


Syphon, if you need me to dumb this down so you can understand it, let me know.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

I think it's abhorring that the gun nuts are oblivious to the first half of that amendment.

Point it out and we will tear it up.

Don't tear it up, follow it! "A well-regulated militia..."

 

[Liberty]

I think it's abhorring that the gun nuts are oblivious to the first half of that amendment.

Point it out and we will tear it up.

Don't tear it up, follow it! "A well-regulated militia..."

if the government attacks its own people then we become the militia to defend our liberty. that is the point... notice the "...being necessary for the security of a FREE State..." It is not just to defend from foreign invaders. If this were the case it would say "being necessary for the security of the united states" instead. See the difference?

 

[wjmacguffin]

While highly unlikely, it is possible if framed as a "reasonable restriction" in the mode of the old Fire in a Crowded Theater limit on constitutional speech.

The prohibition of falsely yelling fire in a theater is based in the idea that doing so wrongfully puts people in imminent danger of being harmed.

Indeed, most restrictions on the right to free speech -- the prohibition of libel/slander, the isue of 'fighting words' or inciting a riot - are all based on the ide that you do not have the right to use speech that directly unjures others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The constitutionality of ALL gun control laws should be judge by that standard - if your act does not cause actual harm or place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, then a limitation on that act violates the Constitution.


Syphon, if you need me to dumb this down so you can understand it, let me know.

Agreed, but the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide what constitutes "clear, present and immediate danger"? Also, does it really need to be immediate if it's likely? For the record, I'm not pro-guns nor anti-guns. I don't own one but that's just a personal choice. But there are some people in world that, if I knew they owned a gun, I would be seriously worried.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While highly unlikely, it is possible if framed as a "reasonable restriction" in the mode of the old Fire in a Crowded Theater limit on constitutional speech.

The prohibition of falsely yelling fire in a theater is based in the idea that doing so wrongfully puts people in imminent danger of being harmed.

Indeed, most restrictions on the right to free speech -- the prohibition of libel/slander, the isue of 'fighting words' or inciting a riot - are all based on the ide that you do not have the right to use speech that directly unjures others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The constitutionality of ALL gun control laws should be judge by that standard - if your act does not cause actual harm or place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, then a limitation on that act violates the Constitution.

Syphon, if you need me to dumb this down so you can understand it, let me know.

Agreed, but the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide what constitutes "clear, present and immediate danger"?

Just follow 1st amendment examples and apply them in context.

Also, does it really need to be immediate if it's likely?

Yep. Clear, present, immediate.
Else, you could have your speech limited today for something that might happen next week.