The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[bendog]

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

Well, since it is quite clear in the Constitution that the government does not GIVE rights and that they inherently exist, some of their restrictions could certainly be considered unconstitutional to some.

The BOR is not about the government's rights, as the government doesn't really HAVE rights. The BOR is outlining our rights as people and human beings.

Now, according to that mind set, a person who is convicted as a felon for forging a check (I'm just using that as an example - I'm sure there are others too), could definitely be having his or her rights infringed by government when they try to take away that person's right AFTER they have already served their time. No?

I don't think corporations should have right to free speech, but until the Scotus says otherwise, Citizens United is the law. For those who continue to deny that court approved 2nd amendment restrictions are invalid ... I say mock away. (-:

Yes, the BoR only "enumerates" individual rights.

I'm not really a person who is likely to give convicted felons a break. I'm sure there's some unfairness in denying some the right to legally own a firearm for defense. However, I'm more interested in seeing sentences of twice convicted felons be enhanced if their second offense involves a weapon of any kind.

 

[RKMBrown]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd does not specify which government it is forbidding to infringe the RKBA. So, that means it for bids ALL governments in the US, from infringing. Fed, state, local.

The 1st says "Congress shall make no law respecting..." etc. etc. So when it was ratified, it only restricted the Federal govt. It did this because most states at the time had laws specifying the state's official religion! And the Framers didn't want to mess with that. Those state laws mostly fell into disuse if they hadn't already. And the 14th amendment later changed that to extend the 1st to state and local governments ("incorporation").

But the 2nd started off restricting ALL governments, not just the Fed. The Supremes recently announced in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that it "now" extends to the states and local govts too. But in fact it always did.

If you want to know what the amendment says, read it. Its text overrules any "opinion" from any Court, including the Supremes. Only if the text of an amendment isn't clear, do the courts' "opinions" have any weight... and the 2nd is completely clear.

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context.. These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

 

[ChrisL]

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

Well, since it is quite clear in the Constitution that the government does not GIVE rights and that they inherently exist, some of their restrictions could certainly be considered unconstitutional to some.

The BOR is not about the government's rights, as the government doesn't really HAVE rights. The BOR is outlining our rights as people and human beings.

Now, according to that mind set, a person who is convicted as a felon for forging a check (I'm just using that as an example - I'm sure there are others too), could definitely be having his or her rights infringed by government when they try to take away that person's right AFTER they have already served their time. No?

I don't think corporations should have right to free speech, but until the Scotus says otherwise, Citizens United is the law. For those who continue to deny that court approved 2nd amendment restrictions are invalid ... I say mock away. (-:

Yes, the BoR only "enumerates" individual rights.

I'm not really a person who is likely to give convicted felons a break. I'm sure there's some unfairness in denying some the right to legally own a firearm for defense. However, I'm more interested in seeing sentences of twice convicted felons be enhanced if their second offense involves a weapon of any kind.

Well, the government would love to try and "prevent" tragedies from occurring by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens who wouldn't do those things anyway. Their silly gun free zones and other such measures do nothing to stop these tragedies from occurring, which has proven time and time again. So, I would think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that those types of things are actually infringements since they do not prevent a crime and in, some cases I'm sure, GFZ would actually be a kind of invitation to the sick to commit their crime in such locations.

 

[ChrisL]

^^^

Lol. I hope that wasn't too confusing. I had a hard time putting my thoughts into words there.

 

[bendog]

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

None of the regulations considered in Heller were upheld. Not one.

For God's sake, Scalia went through what the govt could do. Heller won cause the city went too far.

And the second amendment is fully incorporated to the states.
LOL

 

[RKMBrown]

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

Well, since it is quite clear in the Constitution that the government does not GIVE rights and that they inherently exist, some of their restrictions could certainly be considered unconstitutional to some.

The BOR is not about the government's rights, as the government doesn't really HAVE rights. The BOR is outlining our rights as people and human beings.

Now, according to that mind set, a person who is convicted as a felon for forging a check (I'm just using that as an example - I'm sure there are others too), could definitely be having his or her rights infringed by government when they try to take away that person's right AFTER they have already served their time. No?

I don't think corporations should have right to free speech, but until the Scotus says otherwise, Citizens United is the law. For those who continue to deny that court approved 2nd amendment restrictions are invalid ... I say mock away. (-:

Yes, the BoR only "enumerates" individual rights.

I'm not really a person who is likely to give convicted felons a break. I'm sure there's some unfairness in denying some the right to legally own a firearm for defense. However, I'm more interested in seeing sentences of twice convicted felons be enhanced if their second offense involves a weapon of any kind.

Incorrect. The SCOTUS did not say corporations are people that talk and have the right to free speech. What it said is people don't give up their right to free speech when they join a corporation. Thus just because the jointly owned corporation is funding speech, does not mean the people that own said corporation can be silenced by silencing their jointly owned corporation.

 

[RKMBrown]

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

None of the regulations considered in Heller were upheld. Not one.

For God's sake, Scalia went through what the govt could do. Heller won cause the city went too far.

And the second amendment is fully incorporated to the states.
LOL

Then why do the states currently restrict my right to keep and bear arms?

 

[bendog]

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

Well, since it is quite clear in the Constitution that the government does not GIVE rights and that they inherently exist, some of their restrictions could certainly be considered unconstitutional to some.

The BOR is not about the government's rights, as the government doesn't really HAVE rights. The BOR is outlining our rights as people and human beings.

Now, according to that mind set, a person who is convicted as a felon for forging a check (I'm just using that as an example - I'm sure there are others too), could definitely be having his or her rights infringed by government when they try to take away that person's right AFTER they have already served their time. No?

I don't think corporations should have right to free speech, but until the Scotus says otherwise, Citizens United is the law. For those who continue to deny that court approved 2nd amendment restrictions are invalid ... I say mock away. (-:

Yes, the BoR only "enumerates" individual rights.

I'm not really a person who is likely to give convicted felons a break. I'm sure there's some unfairness in denying some the right to legally own a firearm for defense. However, I'm more interested in seeing sentences of twice convicted felons be enhanced if their second offense involves a weapon of any kind.

Well, the government would love to try and "prevent" tragedies from occurring by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens who wouldn't do those things anyway. Their silly gun free zones and other such measures do nothing to stop these tragedies from occurring, which has proven time and time again. So, I would think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that those types of things are actually infringements since they do not prevent a crime and in, some cases I'm sure, GFZ would actually be a kind of invitation to the sick to commit their crime in such locations.

Just because a govt has a power to do something doesn't mean govt will use it wisely. But judging whether a law is good or not so good isn't a judicial function. It's political and up to citizens to elect people to do the right thing.

GFZ either work or don't work on college campuses depending upon the responsiveness of law enforcement, but they are constitutional. Personally I have no problem with concealed or open carry laws

 

[MaryL]

Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.

I suggest you leave Chicago....
When I put my pants on this morning I clipped my holster and my semiautomatic pistol inside my waist band. It was there all day. I went to the bank. I did not rob it. I went to a burger joint, I didn't start shooting innocent people. I played poker for 5 hours and didn't shoot any of my opponents. I placed the pistol and holster on my night stand when I took my pants off. I'm sitting up in bed and I can reach out and touch it if I so choose.
How the FUCK did I violate anybody's rights today? No one is dead or wounded, hell the damned thing didn't even "accidentally discharge" all day. Why the HELL are you afraid of me?

I have been assaulted by a criminal with a gun, also I have been confronted with police officers with guns ON MY OWN FLIPPIN property. I don't care if you own a 95mm anti tank pistol, You aren't protecting me or anyone else. Even the police need to take down the use of extreme force and realize the use of firearms needs to be curtailed...

 

[bendog]

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

None of the regulations considered in Heller were upheld. Not one.

For God's sake, Scalia went through what the govt could do. Heller won cause the city went too far.

And the second amendment is fully incorporated to the states.
LOL

Then why do the states currently restrict my right to keep and bear arms?

Because the second amendment allows for govt regulation and restrictions on the ownership, use and carry of firearms, so long as the right is not "infringed," That's what Heller and McDonald are all about. You used up my patience quota with you inanities about immigration earlier, so I'm not responding further today anyway.

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

None of the regulations considered in Heller were upheld. Not one.

For God's sake, Scalia went through what the govt could do. Heller won cause the city went too far.

And the second amendment is fully incorporated to the states.
LOL

Then why do the states currently restrict my right to keep and bear arms?

Because the second amendment allows for govt regulation and restrictions on the ownership, use and carry of firearms, so long as the right is not "infringed," That's what Heller and McDonald are all about. You used up my patience quota with you inanities about immigration earlier, so I'm not responding further today anyway.

ROFL you're a dumb ass, but I can see how your inability to think would butt heads with me on pretty much any issue where you want to take away my rights. Shall not be infringed does not mean well it's ok to infringe so long as the infringement is does not infringe to much.. ROFL

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?

Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?

I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.

Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?

I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.

Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Hey moron... What makes you think CRIMINALS will obey the law regarding weapons? What part of "CRIMINAL" confused you?

 

[ChrisL]

Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?

I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.

Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Not at all. All school shootings have taken place in "gun free zones." That is not propaganda. That is a fact. I never said I thought students should be packing. I think if a teacher maybe should be allowed to with certain requirements.

Mentally impaired? There is another interesting point. What consists of "mentally impaired?" What if a person was treated for depression at one time? Is that person considered mentally impaired? Who determines the level of mental impairment is enough to restrict one's right to self defense?

Not that I am wanting seriously mentally ill people to be walking around packing heat, but I am curious about these things and wonder who sets the bar? The government? Is that appropriate when the 2nd amendment was written to protect that "right" from being infringed upon by the government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should various government officials be able to deny gun licenses without consequences if they cite a moral objection to guns?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Not at all. All school shootings have taken place in "gun free zones." That is not propaganda. That is a fact. I never said I thought students should be packing. I think if a teacher maybe should be allowed to with certain requirements.

Mentally impaired? There is another interesting point. What consists of "mentally impaired?" What if a person was treated for depression at one time? Is that person considered mentally impaired? Who determines the level of mental impairment is enough to restrict one's right to self defense?

Not that I am wanting seriously mentally ill people to be walking around packing heat, but I am curious about these things and wonder who sets the bar? The government? Is that appropriate when the 2nd amendment was written to protect that "right" from being infringed upon by the government?

Gun free zones do not prohibit armed security personnel.

 

[Contumacious]

But that's not my assertion.
My assertion is that the fact that the are no exceptions listed in the 2nd in no way means that the 2nd protects -everything- related to the right to keep and bear arms.

(patiently)

The use of a gun to murder someone is not "related to the right to keep and bear arms" in any significant way.

I have yet to find anyone who thinks it is.

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms. Without exception.

Clear now?

THE US CONSTITUTION, THE NINTH AND SECOND AMENDMENTS PROTECT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE.



.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Not at all. All school shootings have taken place in "gun free zones." That is not propaganda. That is a fact. I never said I thought students should be packing. I think if a teacher maybe should be allowed to with certain requirements.

Mentally impaired? There is another interesting point. What consists of "mentally impaired?" What if a person was treated for depression at one time? Is that person considered mentally impaired? Who determines the level of mental impairment is enough to restrict one's right to self defense?

Not that I am wanting seriously mentally ill people to be walking around packing heat, but I am curious about these things and wonder who sets the bar? The government? Is that appropriate when the 2nd amendment was written to protect that "right" from being infringed upon by the government?

Gun free zones do not prohibit armed security personnel.

UNFORTUNATELY , IN PLACES LIKE SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY , THEY WERE MADE GUN FREE ZONE WITHOUT AN ARMED SECURITY DETAIL.


.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Not at all. All school shootings have taken place in "gun free zones." That is not propaganda. That is a fact. I never said I thought students should be packing. I think if a teacher maybe should be allowed to with certain requirements.

Mentally impaired? There is another interesting point. What consists of "mentally impaired?" What if a person was treated for depression at one time? Is that person considered mentally impaired? Who determines the level of mental impairment is enough to restrict one's right to self defense?

Not that I am wanting seriously mentally ill people to be walking around packing heat, but I am curious about these things and wonder who sets the bar? The government? Is that appropriate when the 2nd amendment was written to protect that "right" from being infringed upon by the government?

The second sentence is false of your first paragraph is false. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

You should be able to find a legal definition of "mentally impaired". Within the last week or so a cop was gunned done by a person who had been adjudicated incapable of standing trial due to mental impairment in 2012 and spent 6 month in a mental facility. Depressed people are quite capable of harming themselves or others. I know a bit about PTSD, perhaps, and medication doesn't rid one of all the demons forever for just one example with which I am familiar!

IF you have read and understood what J. Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, which I and others have posted numerous times, you would have your answers to all your questions in your last paragraph.

You post requesting a response to your "bad check" question was given due consideration. It was another open ended question without specifics, and you had already been noticed that I won't go down a rabbit hole such as that. Flesh it out with the full range of circumstances and I'd be happy to reply with the same degree of detail.

And thank you for allowing a calm discussion to continue. I truly appreciate that!

 

[ChrisL]

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Not at all. All school shootings have taken place in "gun free zones." That is not propaganda. That is a fact. I never said I thought students should be packing. I think if a teacher maybe should be allowed to with certain requirements.

Mentally impaired? There is another interesting point. What consists of "mentally impaired?" What if a person was treated for depression at one time? Is that person considered mentally impaired? Who determines the level of mental impairment is enough to restrict one's right to self defense?

Not that I am wanting seriously mentally ill people to be walking around packing heat, but I am curious about these things and wonder who sets the bar? The government? Is that appropriate when the 2nd amendment was written to protect that "right" from being infringed upon by the government?

The second sentence is false of your first paragraph is false. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

You should be able to find a legal definition of "mentally impaired". Within the last week or so a cop was gunned done by a person who had been adjudicated incapable of standing trial due to mental impairment in 2012 and spent 6 month in a mental facility. Depressed people are quite capable of harming themselves or others. I know a bit about PTSD, perhaps, and medication doesn't rid one of all the demons forever for just one example with which I am familiar!

IF you have read and understood what J. Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, which I and others have posted numerous times, you would have your answers to all your questions in your last paragraph.

You post requesting a response to your "bad check" question was given due consideration. It was another open ended question without specifics, and you had already been noticed that I won't go down a rabbit hole such as that. Flesh it out with the full range of circumstances and I'd be happy to reply with the same degree of detail.

And thank you for allowing a calm discussion to continue. I truly appreciate that!

It is not a rabbit hole. It is a legitimate question. You have to draw a line somewhere, especially when it comes to restricting an individual's rights since they are not "given" by government and the BOR is meant to protect us from tyranny and give us some rights.

About gun free zone shootings, I said MOST, so my statement still stands.

You also have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to restricting the rights of the mentally ill. They are still citizens with their individual rights in this country.

I'm not asking about the court's opinions. I've read that. I am asking you for YOUR opinions on this matter. After all, this is a discussion board.