The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[JoeB131]

Arms are the only counterweight against tyranny - the more assalt weapons our citizens own; the more secure our freedom will be!

One more time.

I don't feel any safer that these guys have guns...

Not sure why you do....

 

[jgarden]

Arms are the only counterweight against tyranny - the more assalt weapons our citizens own; the more secure our freedom will be!

Windsor goes two years without a murder while Detroit has one per day
September 28, 2011

... The murder-free period stands in contrast to Detroit – just across the Ambassador Bridge – which has averaged about one homicide a day so far in 2011. Granted Detroit is four times the size of Windsor, but 260 is a long, long way from zero.

... The average person walking down a street in Windsor is very unlikely to be carrying a gun. There's no need to "protect" yourself with a gun when so few people around you are armed

http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffe...murder_while_detroit_has_one_per_day/f6022a9f

So "Duped" would have us believe that the good citizens of Windsor Ontario, who did not experience one homicide in 26 months, are not as safe/free as their American counterparts in Detroit just across the river - who average 1 homicide daily?

 

[Abatis]

Woooo...I think the 2nd amendment is very clear. Any weapon the government has, the people should have. We will need to be on equal footing if we ever want to overthrow the government like we overthrew the one in the late 18th century.

While I agree that the preservation of the right to self defense against the federal government is one of the objects (intents) of the 2nd Amendment, I don't agree that the 2nd Amendment's protections are intended to maintain tactical equivalency with the government.

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers that We the People have granted to government so it can perform certain duties We the People have placed on it. The power to declare war and raise and support an army and navy (including powers to acquire and possess the weapons of wide scale / indiscriminate warfare) have been surrendered by We the People.

This principle is evident in the Constitution as it pertains to weapons of war owned by private citizens. The most devastating weapon of the day were armed ships called Privateers and control over the ownership, maintenance and use of these weapons was granted to Congress in Art I, § 8, cl. 11.

The most fundamental intermingled principles of the Constitution, those of conferred powers and retained rights demands that those powers / interests that We the People have surrendered we can no longer claim as a right. Of course that also means that all NOT conferred, we retain and the federal government can not claim as a power . . .

So, FOR AS LONG AS THE CONSTITUTION IS IN FORCE, which means for as long as We the People consent to be governed, the federal government enjoys exclusive and preemptive powers.

When We the People decide that the federal government has violated the principles of its establishment and is no longer legitimate and move to rescind our consent to be governed, we will reclaim those powers we lent to government and then and only then does the federal government loose those preemptive powers.

Up to that rescinding of consent and reclamation of powers once granted, you have no claimable "right" to own "any weapon the government has" nor any claim to tactical equivalency.

 

[zeke]

Arms are the only counterweight against tyranny - the more assalt weapons our citizens own; the more secure our freedom will be!

One more time.

I don't feel any safer that these guys have guns...

Not sure why you do....

Gee Joe, how could you not feel safer with that group of well trained, highly conditioned militia members. On the job training is what they are doing. Beer drinking was earlier and again, later.


Joe, it seems that you are having a hard time accepting that most Americans are willing to accept the number of deaths by gun that occur every day. Suicides, accidental deaths and homocides. All by gun and all perfectly acceptable to most. All so that we can protect ourselves from the random crime and the governments taking of our weapons.

I still think the interesting question is how many deaths by gun would have to occur daily to change the thinking about guns and their availability.

One thing for sure; we ain't there yet. Protect your own is all you can do.

Hell most of the real gun freaks don't even know that the greatest number of gun dealths in America are suicides. They seem to think the deaths are the result of some home owner standing his ground. Or a robbery where the victum shot back.

 

[Abatis]

There is a whole spectrum of issues regarding arms.

Say you are allowed to buy an AR-15. Should you have to register it?

NO.

Congress, by way of the Dick Act has relieved the citizenry of all Art. I, § 8, cl 16 militia obligations and thus has extinguished all interest Congress could be said to possess under the Constitution in what arms the citizen owns.

The AR-15 is semi-automatic. Should we be allowed to buy an automatic like, say, an AK-47?

Congress, in 1934 knew it could not "ban" machine guns and sawed-off shotguns so it erected a regulation scheme in the tax code to tax the transfer of these weapons between private citizens. It would seem that any challenge to that law would fail going by Heller dicta. I think that even under strict scrutiny NFA-34 would be sustained.

Should you have to register a handgun?

NO.

Should you have to pass a background check to own a firearm?

I believe the National Instant Check System is legitimate and would pass any challenge under the 2nd Amendment as to its constitutionality.

Who should be excluded from owning a firearm? Ex-cons? For how long?

The present gun rights disability for conviction for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more has been scrutinized many times and has never been threatened. I really don't have a problem with that.

The mentally disabled?

Certainly those deemed mentally incapable should be barred from ownership.

Someone who was hospitalized for a couple weeks for suicide? For how long?

Currently, federal law states that anyone, "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" is barred from owning a firearm. I think that threshold is acceptable.

Someone on medication? Antidepressants?

See above.

Should guns be banned from school zones?

NO.

 

[zeke]

How in the hell did all those that commit suicide get their gun?

Guy I knew killed himself recently. With a gun he bought off a private individual. He was mentally unstable, drug addicted and abusive. No way he could pass a background check. He had been arrested for domestic violence.

No problem getting a gun though. Those who think that just because there are laws forbidding crazies from getting guns, that they can't get a gun, are full of shit. It is no problem what so ever.

 

[GuyPinestra]

How in the hell did all those that commit suicide get their gun?

Guy I knew killed himself recently. With a gun he bought off a private individual. He was mentally unstable, drug addicted and abusive. No way he could pass a background check. He had been arrested for domestic violence.

No problem getting a gun though. Those who think that just because there are laws forbidding crazies from getting guns, that they can't get a gun, are full of shit. It is no problem what so ever.

Which is EXACTLY why more gun laws won't accomplish anything!

 

[zeke]

How in the hell did all those that commit suicide get their gun?

Guy I knew killed himself recently. With a gun he bought off a private individual. He was mentally unstable, drug addicted and abusive. No way he could pass a background check. He had been arrested for domestic violence.

No problem getting a gun though. Those who think that just because there are laws forbidding crazies from getting guns, that they can't get a gun, are full of shit. It is no problem what so ever.

Which is EXACTLY why more gun laws won't accomplish anything!

Well no shit sherlock. Who ever said it would? I think ALL citizens should be required to concealed carry and you should be able to buy what ever gun your heart desires.

But all I was saying is that there are gun laws on the books, supposedly so crazy people can't get access to guns. And they don't work.

We love guns and we are willing to accept that crazy people have easy access to guns.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[GuyPinestra]

How in the hell did all those that commit suicide get their gun?

Guy I knew killed himself recently. With a gun he bought off a private individual. He was mentally unstable, drug addicted and abusive. No way he could pass a background check. He had been arrested for domestic violence.

No problem getting a gun though. Those who think that just because there are laws forbidding crazies from getting guns, that they can't get a gun, are full of shit. It is no problem what so ever.

Which is EXACTLY why more gun laws won't accomplish anything!

Well no shit sherlock. Who ever said it would? I think ALL citizens should be required to concealed carry and you should be able to buy what ever gun your heart desires.

Almost EVERY quaking Leftist in America, and most every one of them on these boards. And I agree with you on the rest of your statement.

But all I was saying is that there are gun laws on the books, supposedly so crazy people can't get access to guns. And they don't work.

We love guns and we are willing to accept that crazy people have easy access to guns.

Do you have a problem with that?

Nope.

 

[JoeB131]

Gee Joe, how could you not feel safer with that group of well trained, highly conditioned militia members. On the job training is what they are doing. Beer drinking was earlier and again, later.

Joe, it seems that you are having a hard time accepting that most Americans are willing to accept the number of deaths by gun that occur every day. Suicides, accidental deaths and homocides. All by gun and all perfectly acceptable to most. All so that we can protect ourselves from the random crime and the governments taking of our weapons.

I still think the interesting question is how many deaths by gun would have to occur daily to change the thinking about guns and their availability.

One thing for sure; we ain't there yet. Protect your own is all you can do.

Hell most of the real gun freaks don't even know that the greatest number of gun dealths in America are suicides. They seem to think the deaths are the result of some home owner standing his ground. Or a robbery where the victum shot back.

I think you raise interesting points here.

If we treated gun ownership like car ownership, you only get one if you are trained, licenced and insured, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Yes there would still be deaths and accidents, but the ownership would be more responsible.

The thing is, this debate has been taken over by the gun grabbers who want to take everyone's guns, and the gun fetishists, who would give up their dicks before their guns. And right now, the Fetishists are better organized politically.

But every time we have a mass shooting like Loughner or Joker Holmes, three things we always end up finding out.

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy and dangerous.

2) They still had no problem acquiring a gun.

3) The NRA and the Gun Fetish chorus have no problem stomping out even reasonable suggestions for reforms.

 

[Abatis]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is stated quite clearly, is to allow the state to maintain a well-regulated militia.

You are stating an "invented" interpretation that is of recent origin in the federal court system. It was first stated in U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) (52k pdf) in which the court said, referring to the 2nd Amendment:

_______________________

"this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power"​

_______________________​

SCOTUS has never spoken such ridiculousness and set the record straight in DC v Heller which invalidated the "state's right" invented in Tot and the "militia right" invented in Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) (40k pdf)

I don't require a primer. I can simply read the amendment which, as I said, is quite clear. I realize that it does not say what you want it to say, but that is just the way it goes. The SC agrees with me.

You certainly do need a primer.
You need to learn you can not separate the text from the principle and object of the provision's establishment.
You need to actually read the Supreme Court and understand what you are reading for that would divest you of your incorrect beliefs.

First and foremost you would understand that no matter what significance YOU put on the term "well regulated" the Supreme Court has held for going on 140 years that:

_______________________

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Presser v. Illinois - 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
paraphrasing United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)​

_______________________​

Now, what part of "well-regulated" are you having difficulty with?

Well, if the Court holds that the right to arms is not created, granted, given or established by the 2nd Amendment, and is not in any manner dependent upon the words for its existence, how do you justify reading the 2nd Amendment as imparting qualifications, conditions, exclusions or restrictions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' or as Cruikshank originally stated, the right of, "bearing arms for lawful purpose"? (incidentally, of two ex-slaves in 1870's Louisiana disarmed and lynched by white militia)

As to having weapons for the purpose of overthrowing the government, the Constitution says this:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The reasoning, under a government of conferred powers that government only exercises with the consent of the governed . . . that the right to consent to be governed means "we the People" also retained the right to rescind that consent and withdraw / reclaim the powers we granted to government, so, . . . . the then illegitimate government can no longer claim the protections of the social compact, i.e., preemptive powers and the power to prosecute treason.

 

[zeke]

Gee Joe, how could you not feel safer with that group of well trained, highly conditioned militia members. On the job training is what they are doing. Beer drinking was earlier and again, later.

Joe, it seems that you are having a hard time accepting that most Americans are willing to accept the number of deaths by gun that occur every day. Suicides, accidental deaths and homocides. All by gun and all perfectly acceptable to most. All so that we can protect ourselves from the random crime and the governments taking of our weapons.

I still think the interesting question is how many deaths by gun would have to occur daily to change the thinking about guns and their availability.

One thing for sure; we ain't there yet. Protect your own is all you can do.

Hell most of the real gun freaks don't even know that the greatest number of gun dealths in America are suicides. They seem to think the deaths are the result of some home owner standing his ground. Or a robbery where the victum shot back.

I think you raise interesting points here.

If we treated gun ownership like car ownership, you only get one if you are trained, licenced and insured, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Yes there would still be deaths and accidents, but the ownership would be more responsible.

The thing is, this debate has been taken over by the gun grabbers who want to take everyone's guns, and the gun fetishists, who would give up their dicks before their guns. And right now, the Fetishists are better organized politically.

But every time we have a mass shooting like Loughner or Joker Holmes, three things we always end up finding out.

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy and dangerous.

2) They still had no problem acquiring a gun.

3) The NRA and the Gun Fetish chorus have no problem stomping out even reasonable suggestions for reforms.

All of your reasoning is sound. But the response above yours is the reason that reasonable people can't find reasonable solutions to a problem. Peope don't care about gun violence if it doesn't effect them. As victums.

If I have this fantasy our gubmint is selling out to the UN and only me and my friends with guns can save America, it is not possible for me to consider gun control. Therefore I "need" automatic weapons.

If I am sure I will save my possessions or life from the random robber, nothing will convince me that gun control is reasonable. Cause then "only the robber would have a gun".

No, it will take hundreds of deaths a day before anyone in the government would consider gun control. Even then, it wouldn't go anywhere. We would just accept it as being the "American way".

I believe that we are the only country that guarantees the right to arms in the founding docs.

We are gun crazy. COTUS made us that way.


Like I said earlier in this post. I grew up with a crazy dad who always had a gun. I have seen crazy actions with guns. Just part of life in America I always thought.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Arms are the only counterweight against tyranny - the more assalt weapons our citizens own; the more secure our freedom will be!

And this statement above is exactly why gunz need to be banned, let the government do there job, that is to control us, this does not work when the average shmoe has a gun and a say-so.

You heard it here. The government's job is to control us.

 

[Abatis]

But every time we have a mass shooting like Loughner or Joker Holmes, three things we always end up finding out.

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy and dangerous.

2) They still had no problem acquiring a gun.

Neither of them or Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech ever breached the LEGAL threshold for their gun rights to be disabled due to metal health issues. Sure, in hindsight "everybody knew" they were cuckoo for cocoa-puffs but nobody made the call and started the process that could eventually lead to a gun rights disablement.

As I posted above, federal law states that anyone, "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" is barred from owning a firearm. Those two criteria are not subjective, it isn't whether an ex-girlfriend thought he was a little "off" or his muttering to himself makes a teacher uncomfortable . . .

3) The NRA and the Gun Fetish chorus have no problem stomping out even reasonable suggestions for reforms.

And what would you consider those "reasonable suggestions for reforms" to be? You do realize that your proposals must conform with current laws and the Constitution?

 

[Abatis]

All of your reasoning is sound.

Uhhhhh, no, not really.

But the response above yours is the reason that reasonable people can't find reasonable solutions to a problem.

All I am speaking of is current law and the fundamental principles of the Constitution. If you see something in what I wrote to be impediments to the gun control laws that you would like to see enacted, then you certainly are trudging up a very steep hill . . . actually, it is a cliff.

Peope don't care about gun violence if it doesn't effect them. As victums.

What did I write above that would lead you to believe I don't care about gun violence victims? Stop projecting your emotions and feelings onto my statements.

If I have this fantasy our gubmint is selling out to the UN and only me and my friends with guns can save America, it is not possible for me to consider gun control. Therefore I "need" automatic weapons.

Again, projection.

If I am sure I will save my possessions or life from the random robber, nothing will convince me that gun control is reasonable. Cause then "only the robber would have a gun".

Are you still fantasizing about what I wrote or are you just off in your own little world now?

I believe that we are the only country that guarantees the right to arms in the founding docs.

We are gun crazy. COTUS made us that way.

My right to arms does not depend in any manner of the Constitution to exist. You would be more accurate if you said:

I believe that we are the only country that forbids the government the exercise of powers never granted to it, and guarantees some of our retained rights from government overstepping of authority, in the founding docs.​

"Rights" are the interests for which we did not grant to government any power / control over.

Rights are uncountable and unlistable and not for government to define, describe or circumscribe (see 9th Amendment).

We don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there; we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen (see 10th Amendment).

Once you understand that, you might, just might understand "gun fetishists" unyielding rejection of your "reasonable solutions" that violate nearly every tenet this Republic was founded upon.

 

[JoeB131]

But every time we have a mass shooting like Loughner or Joker Holmes, three things we always end up finding out.

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy and dangerous.

2) They still had no problem acquiring a gun.

Neither of them or Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech ever breached the LEGAL threshold for their gun rights to be disabled due to metal health issues. Sure, in hindsight "everybody knew" they were cuckoo for cocoa-puffs but nobody made the call and started the process that could eventually lead to a gun rights disablement.

As I posted above, federal law states that anyone, "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" is barred from owning a firearm. Those two criteria are not subjective, it isn't whether an ex-girlfriend thought he was a little "off" or his muttering to himself makes a teacher uncomfortable . . .

3) The NRA and the Gun Fetish chorus have no problem stomping out even reasonable suggestions for reforms.

And what would you consider those "reasonable suggestions for reforms" to be? You do realize that your proposals must conform with current laws and the Constitution?

How about this. Before you get a gun license, they have to do a background check on you, just like you would if you got a job.

The thing is, if Cho, Holmes or Loughner had applied for a job, people would have had no problem finding out they were, as you say, Cookoo for Cocoa Puffs.

But Because the NRA fights every gun law tooth and nail, you'd literally have to lock up one of these guys before you'd consider red-flagging them.

"but, but, the second Amendment says I can have a gun!"

 

[GuyPinestra]

But every time we have a mass shooting like Loughner or Joker Holmes, three things we always end up finding out.

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy and dangerous.

2) They still had no problem acquiring a gun.

Neither of them or Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech ever breached the LEGAL threshold for their gun rights to be disabled due to metal health issues. Sure, in hindsight "everybody knew" they were cuckoo for cocoa-puffs but nobody made the call and started the process that could eventually lead to a gun rights disablement.

As I posted above, federal law states that anyone, "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" is barred from owning a firearm. Those two criteria are not subjective, it isn't whether an ex-girlfriend thought he was a little "off" or his muttering to himself makes a teacher uncomfortable . . .

3) The NRA and the Gun Fetish chorus have no problem stomping out even reasonable suggestions for reforms.

And what would you consider those "reasonable suggestions for reforms" to be? You do realize that your proposals must conform with current laws and the Constitution?

How about this. Before you get a gun license, they have to do a background check on you, just like you would if you got a job.

The thing is, if Cho, Holmes or Loughner had applied for a job, people would have had no problem finding out they were, as you say, Cookoo for Cocoa Puffs.

But Because the NRA fights every gun law tooth and nail, you'd literally have to lock up one of these guys before you'd consider red-flagging them.

"but, but, the second Amendment says I can have a gun!"

How about this, Joe?

FUCK your 'license'!

I don't NEED a God-damned license, it's nobody's business if I have a gun or how many I own! I've never shot anyone and I'm no threat to anyone UNLESS they are a threat to me.

Gawd, you fucks are some punks!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Goofy Militia is only a threat to themselves.

Arms are the only counterweight against tyranny - the more assalt weapons our citizens own; the more secure our freedom will be!

One more time.

I don't feel any safer that these guys have guns...

Not sure why you do....

 

[Duped]

Arms are the only counterweight against tyranny - the more assalt weapons our citizens own; the more secure our freedom will be!

Windsor goes two years without a murder while Detroit has one per day
September 28, 2011

... The murder-free period stands in contrast to Detroit – just across the Ambassador Bridge – which has averaged about one homicide a day so far in 2011. Granted Detroit is four times the size of Windsor, but 260 is a long, long way from zero.

... The average person walking down a street in Windsor is very unlikely to be carrying a gun. There's no need to "protect" yourself with a gun when so few people around you are armed

Windsor goes two years without a murder while Detroit has one per day | Sympatico.ca News

So "Duped" would have us believe that the good citizens of Windsor Ontario, who did not experience one homicide in 26 months, are not as safe/free as their American counterparts in Detroit just across the river - who average 1 homicide daily?

How many blacks you got up there

 

[Abatis]

How about this. Before you get a gun license, they have to do a background check on you, just like you would if you got a job.

By what authority would the government compel a citizen to acquire a license to exercise a fundamental right? The idea is abhorrent to me.

A background check is performed on every retail sale of a firearm currently.

Total NICS Checks, Nov. 30, 1998 - November 30, 2012 (15kb pdf)

Holy crap!!!!! What the heck happened in November of 2012??? Oh yeah, never mind . . .

The thing is, if Cho, Holmes or Loughner had applied for a job, people would have had no problem finding out they were, as you say, Cookoo for Cocoa Puffs.

And just how would that happen?

What database or check would be available to an employer that isn't available to NICS? Even more perplexing, how will this underground background check contain names of "crazy" people when they have never been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution? Sounds like a NLRB complaint in the making for unfair / discriminatory hiring practices . . .

But Because the NRA fights every gun law tooth and nail, you'd literally have to lock up one of these guys before you'd consider red-flagging them.

Yeah, you sure are paying close attention.

People are not "red-flagged" until they meet one of the following criteria:

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien . . . is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that . . . restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,​

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.​

You as a rabid gun phobic, might have other criteria to bar gun ownership, like wearing white after Labor Day, but that doesn't amount to anything but typical authoritarian leftist wishful thinking.

"but, but, the second Amendment says I can have a gun!"

No it doesn't.

I do not rely on any word from any document for the existence of any fundamental right.