Restoration of Civil Rights should include the 2nd Amendment

[Anathema]

I just don't want a stupid hateful Liberal deciding who should own firearms and who shouldn't. You can't trust them because their agenda is not public safety.

This isn’t a Liberal vs Conservative issue any more than it is Republicans vs Democrats. It’s about Criminals vs Law-Abiding Citizens.

In my mind Criminsls bacon sub-human the instant they are convicted. No Rights. No Privileges. Nothing. Execute them or stick them in a hole until they die naturally. No parole. No probation. Locked up or dead.

If we are going to let them out, they should not simply be allowed back into Society as if nothing ever happened.

 

[Wayne Adams]

How many are suicide?

doesn't matter.

Every life matters as well as the relevancy to the topic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A vote is more dangerous than a bullet.

Personally, I'd restore none of them. Penalties for screwing up.

We put people in prison for way too stupid of reasons to make every sentence a life sentence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why doesn't it? Do we want voters that cannot be trusted defend themselves?

33,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries every year...

Only a handful involve "people defending themselves". Most of them are 'some idiot who never should have had a gun hurting themselves or others'.

How many are suicide?

90%

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many are suicide?

doesn't matter.

It matters deeply.

You seek to strip people of civil rights based on a lie.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does matter

No, it really doesn't. If there hadn't been a gun in the house that day, that person would still be alive.

Even for a scumbag like you, that's amazingly fucking stupid.

If there isn't a gun, their is a rope, or a razor blade.

Pills are the #1 implement for suicide, Commie fuck.

You seek to disarm your enemies. Your enemy is the American people.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Crazy people do awful things both with and without guns. Why not lock up the crazy people?

Because I don't want to live in a police state...

do you?

The individual right to bear arms is a clear Constitutional right, as the SCOTUS reiterated in DC v. Heller.

The right to vote is not. If you disagree, post the Article, Section and Paragraph granting a general right to vote.

blah, blah, blah... nobody found a right to a gun in the Second until Crazy Tony Scalia came along.

The Second is about Militias, not guns.

Restrictions based upon "need" are unconstitutional. The others? Perhaps, but those are not the venue of the federal government.

Until it is.

Actually, there's a whole lot of ways the Feds can fuck with the gun industry.

Top of my list, repeal the idiotic law that holds gun sellers blameless. Betcha when a few mass shooting families clean out a few gun sellers, they are going to be REALLY KEEN on making sure the nuts don't get them.

The second thing I'd do is let the gun sellers know if they are irresponsible in their sales, they don't get government contracts. Since the Government is a bigger customer than Crazy McShooty, they'll change their tactics really fast.

Some say you cannot fix stupid. With you, I do not know whether we're talking ignorance or stupidity. I'm almost positive that I cannot possibly be the first to make this argument, but yes owning a firearm is a Right. Just in case nobody told you, this is a road map to understanding the Right:

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:

"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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

That is what we call a FOUNDING PRINCIPLE. Are you with me? With regard to the Declaration of Independence, this what the SCOTUS has ruled:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

So you have unalienable Rights. These are Rights that are above the reach of the government. How have the courts ruled on this? Well, let us go back to high school civics. As you know, there are only a couple of instances where the SCOTUS gets to be the first court of original jurisdiction. So, the early state courts interpreted the Second Amendment. Here is how they ruled:

"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...”


Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251


"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)

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878) - This information was copied and pasted from The Resistance Manual

Okay, we know how the state courts ruled. And, we know that the SCOTUS upheld this interpretation. For example:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States. ...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 (1876) So, here's the deal:

The above case, is the FIRST ruling the SCOTUS made interpreting the Second Amendment. Where gun owners and people as yourself disagree are on the points wherein the courts and SCOTUS have REINTERPRETED those earliest precedents. Even in Heller, the Court ruled you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. But, all the anti-gun rulings after Cruikshank that over-rule that are questionable. George Washington warned:

"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."
FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The Courts have had the POWER to reinterpret the Constitution since then, but they certainly lacked the AUTHORITY. So, legitimately a person cannot be deprived of a Right. Once they paid their debt to society and have been released, they should retain ALL their Rights... otherwise NO Right is safe. Either they are given by your Creator or they are doled out by government. Which is it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From a BBC article on the subject, free of NRA influence, pertaining to 2016...

Based on US Center for Disease Control figures, as relayed by Mother Jones...

Lots of other relevant charts where that came from...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

This of course misses the point.

There is no ‘acceptable’ number of gun deaths the consequence of mass shootings – 71 is 71 deaths too many.

 

[bripat9643]

Joe wants to abolish gun ownership.

He is entitled to his opinion, but arguing to abolish the 2nd amendment is the same as arguing to abolish the first amendment.

Joe also wants to abolish the First Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

From a BBC article on the subject, free of NRA influence, pertaining to 2016...

Based on US Center for Disease Control figures, as relayed by Mother Jones...

Lots of other relevant charts where that came from...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

This of course misses the point.

There is no ‘acceptable’ number of gun deaths the consequence of mass shootings – 71 is 71 deaths too many.

What is the acceptable number of people killed or raped by illegal aliens?

 

[JoeB131]

Really??!! And I guess those individuals couldn’t have found sleeping pills or a piece of rope. So sure are you in your arrogance.

The chances of surviving an overdose or hanging are a lot better than surviving a self-inflicted gunshot... and when most people fail at suicide, they don't try again.

Joe wants to abolish gun ownership.

He is entitled to his opinion, but arguing to abolish the 2nd amendment is the same as arguing to abolish the first amendment.

Not really. You really can't have a free country without freedom of expression.

But nearly every other democratic free society limits gun ownership... and they are just as free as we are.

 

[JoeB131]

It matters deeply.

You seek to strip people of civil rights based on a lie.

Compensating for a tiny dick isn't a civil right.

 

[JoeB131]

Some say you cannot fix stupid. With you, I do not know whether we're talking ignorance or stupidity. I'm almost positive that I cannot possibly be the first to make this argument, but yes owning a firearm is a Right. Just in case nobody told you, this is a road map to understanding the Right:

Again, if the Founding Slave Rapists really believed that shit... they'd have let their slaves own guns.. Then Sally Hemmings would have shot Tommy Jefferson out of pure disgust with his hypocrisy.

So I don't worry about why guys who shit in chamberpots thought something was a good idea. Maybe militias in 1787 were a good idea before we had professional standing armies and police forces. Is it a good idea for Nicholas Cruz or Adam Lanza to own a semi-automatic weapon designed for a battlefield? Nope.

 

[sparky]

Foisting firearms as a civil rights issue isn't the goal here. One can not compartementalize civil rights issues down to ONE, w/o consideration to all others.

~S~

 

[bripat9643]

Really??!! And I guess those individuals couldn’t have found sleeping pills or a piece of rope. So sure are you in your arrogance.

The chances of surviving an overdose or hanging are a lot better than surviving a self-inflicted gunshot... and when most people fail at suicide, they don't try again.

Joe wants to abolish gun ownership.

He is entitled to his opinion, but arguing to abolish the 2nd amendment is the same as arguing to abolish the first amendment.

Not really. You really can't have a free country without freedom of expression.

But nearly every other democratic free society limits gun ownership... and they are just as free as we are.

ROFL! No they aren't.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Really??!! And I guess those individuals couldn’t have found sleeping pills or a piece of rope. So sure are you in your arrogance.

The chances of surviving an overdose or hanging are a lot better than surviving a self-inflicted gunshot... and when most people fail at suicide, they don't try again.

Joe wants to abolish gun ownership.

He is entitled to his opinion, but arguing to abolish the 2nd amendment is the same as arguing to abolish the first amendment.

Not really. You really can't have a free country without freedom of expression.

But nearly every other democratic free society limits gun ownership... and they are just as free as we are.

Apparently not.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Joe wants to abolish gun ownership.

He is entitled to his opinion, but arguing to abolish the 2nd amendment is the same as arguing to abolish the first amendment.

Don't worry...he wants to abolish that, too.

He has wet dreams of being Stalin.

 

[Kondor3]

...This of course misses the point. There is no ‘acceptable’ number of gun deaths the consequence of mass shootings – 71 is 71 deaths too many.

It does not "miss the point"... it is merely a statement of fact.

And, nowhere in my post or the graphic that I posted, can one infer that I believe in an 'acceptable number of gun deaths' via mass shooting.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really??!! And I guess those individuals couldn’t have found sleeping pills or a piece of rope. So sure are you in your arrogance.

The chances of surviving an overdose or hanging are a lot better than surviving a self-inflicted gunshot... and when most people fail at suicide, they don't try again.

Joe wants to abolish gun ownership.

He is entitled to his opinion, but arguing to abolish the 2nd amendment is the same as arguing to abolish the first amendment.

Not really. You really can't have a free country without freedom of expression.

But nearly every other democratic free society limits gun ownership... and they are just as free as we are.

An overdose is generally fatal. Hanging is more likely to be fatal than a gunshot. If you hang yourself, you WILL die - period.

You simple seek to end civil rights.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I just don't want a stupid hateful Liberal deciding who should own firearms and who shouldn't. You can't trust them because their agenda is not public safety. Their agenda is to take away the ability of the people to defend themselves so that this country can more easily become the socialist shithole they desire so much.

Indeed. The drive to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms nearly always stems from motives and intents which, if acted on, would give these citizens just cause to use these arms in opposition. Gun control is most supported by those who know that a well-armed populace is the greatest obstacle to their tyrannical agenda.