Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.
You see how that bypasses due process and takes away a right PRIOR TO due process, right? That is ass backwards.

Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States. They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.
But Miller puts that issue to rest while also shooting down bans on the M4 and M249. (holding that a weapon must have a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia)

The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A. No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Because such a bill would immediately be shot down (pun intended). If you can't win outright, you must go at it in backdoor fashion, which you gun grabber have....REPEATEDLY. You even made us fight you all the way to the SCOTUS over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, when you motherfuckers know good and goddamn well that it is. You were just trying to backdoor it. You know you were.

This is why your ilk can never be trusted. You don't give a cocksucking rat fuck about preserving OUR rights. You want to take them away, by any means possible.

Stop denying it. It does nothing but make us even more suspicious of ANYTHING you try.

.

I'm not denying anything, your post here is what I meant by Moot; we will never agree on any aspect of gun control no matter how many victims end up in the morgue and how you view gun control.

You believe "shall not infringe" is sacrosanct, unless someone is either a felon or mentally ill. Without vetting in a comprehensive background check, we will only know after the shooter kills innocent victims that he is a felon and/or mentally ill.

In short you would put your right to own guns without any interference from the government before the right to live by a child who is at school, in church or attending a concert; before any clerk in any store, or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when some kook is seeking suicide by cop.
That's a bullshit argument. (eyeroll)

Freedom ain't safe and it never will be, but it's better than the alternative....... always.

Wrong, but I respect you right to express your opinion. Without being too abstract, consider there are no atheists in a fox hole.
 
1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.
False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).
Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.
3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court. I have seen due process argued plenty of times, something I suspect in which you have no experience.

I was in court a bunch of years ago and the Judge made sure my due process was looked after. What these idjits don't understand is, in our daily lives, due process is part of it from housing to whatever. Otherwise, the landlords and Housing Authorities could kick you out without cause.
 
No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.
You see how that bypasses due process and takes away a right PRIOR TO due process, right? That is ass backwards.

Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States. They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.
But Miller puts that issue to rest while also shooting down bans on the M4 and M249. (holding that a weapon must have a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia)

The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A. No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Because such a bill would immediately be shot down (pun intended). If you can't win outright, you must go at it in backdoor fashion, which you gun grabber have....REPEATEDLY. You even made us fight you all the way to the SCOTUS over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, when you motherfuckers know good and goddamn well that it is. You were just trying to backdoor it. You know you were.

This is why your ilk can never be trusted. You don't give a cocksucking rat fuck about preserving OUR rights. You want to take them away, by any means possible.

Stop denying it. It does nothing but make us even more suspicious of ANYTHING you try.

.

I'm not denying anything, your post here is what I meant by Moot; we will never agree on any aspect of gun control no matter how many victims end up in the morgue and how you view gun control.

You believe "shall not infringe" is sacrosanct, unless someone is either a felon or mentally ill. Without vetting in a comprehensive background check, we will only know after the shooter kills innocent victims that he is a felon and/or mentally ill.

In short you would put your right to own guns without any interference from the government before the right to live by a child who is at school, in church or attending a concert; before any clerk in any store, or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when some kook is seeking suicide by cop.
That's a bullshit argument. (eyeroll)

Freedom ain't safe and it never will be, but it's better than the alternative....... always.

Wrong, but I respect you right to express your opinion. Without being too abstract, consider there are no atheists in a fox hole.
What "foxhole" are you referring to, and how is that relevant anyway? :rolleyes:

Every time someone pulls out this weak-assed "Let us take away your freedoms or all these little children will die....." bullshit argument, it makes me want to throw up. That is just sad and sorry and IMO, you should be ashamed of yourself for that behavior.

It never ceases to amaze me how many little closet authoritarians are running around out there. (SMH)
 
1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.
False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).
Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.
3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.
I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.
Nope. Didn't happen.

If you HAD, you'd understand that In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

You don't.
Is this your opinion, or is there a case which you neglected to offer. I suspect your claim was copied from a blog by a lawyer for the NRA, or someone employed by the NRA, but not in any case before a Federal Court.
:21:
Tell us why you think a police officer can, w/o reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, constitutionally stop someone walking down the sidewalk , restrain them, and check to see if they have any outstanding warrants or other legal impairments.

Go ahead, Terry - I dare you.
:21:
"Reasonable suspicion" is a very subjective term, as is probable cause. Both can and are argued in criminal matters too often. These issue too come into play when one speaks to "due process".
Who is "Terry"?
As expected, you are ignorant of the relevant jurisprudence - even after I gave you a hint.


Thus:
In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause.; state-mandated background checks for the purchase of a firearm do exactly that.

Disagree?
Demonstrate that the state has probable cause or reasonable suspiction to believe any given person purchasing a firearm may not legally do so.

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.
Nah, Terry - didn't happen.
 
I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.
You were a lawyer?
Bullshit.
Nope. I did take LSAT and did take a few classes, but I had by then been employed in my first LE job as an Adult Probation Officer and learned I did not like criminal attorney's - justice came in last as both the defense and prosecution put winning first, with very little or no concern for defendants, victims or witnesses.
:21:
 
This COVID-19 situation has shined the light on how quickly people can rush to a totalitarian state of existence out of fear, and the power brokers are all too happy to take what the fearful give them.

The one factor keeping these "quarantines" voluntary, which will also prevent extended, wholesale deprivation of individual liberty--- armed citizens.

Government is force. Force can only be controlled by opposing force.

Arm yourselves or become chattel.


.
 
A big thank you to idiot Democrats everywhere. Not only did your ignorant #DefundPolice campaign result in a massive Republican victory across the nation, it also has resulted in lower support for gun control!

1605645131456.png
 
I saw that and had to laugh!! Defund the police....? Okey Dokey,we'll just take matters into our own hands.
The left is so damn dumb, it’s just unreal. Their own policies result in the polar opposite of what they want to achieve.

They claim that wealthy people getting wealthier disgusts them, but they push so hard for “free college”. Which means blue-collar people making average wages will spend their entire life paying for the education of white-collar people making above average wages :eusa_doh:

The left is just a special kind of stupid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top