You think you're pro-2nd but you're not

[BackAgain]

Death is absolute... And what is "government" boiled down to its essence? It is the the implied, or explicicit use of force, to coerce the behavior of a given mass of people.
So it really just comes down to "who, is more deadly"? Some things never change..

Death may or may not be absolute.

And libertarians tend to assume that government means the right to use force. But I disagree with that formulation.

Neither of your would-be points says that the Constitution demands absolutes.

 

[Vastator]

Death may or may not be absolute.

And libertarians tend to assume that government means the right to use force. But I disagree with that formulation.

Neither of your would-be points says that the Constitution demands absolutes.

Show me someone who contests the permanance of "death"...

 

[BackAgain]

Show me someone who contests the permanance of "death"...

Christians. I believe Hindus. Maybe others.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The fact is, most gun owners support gun control. Most gun owners on this site, support gun control. As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.

You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

For the first 149 years in this country, no attempt was made by the Federal Government to restrict anyone not in prison or jail or a mental hospital from keeping and bearing arms. For the next 30 years, only violent felons were banned. Then in 1968, it became felony litterers as well.

What changed? Was it always acceptable under the Constitution?

For the first 202 years, no background checks were required; it wasn't necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

In Miller, the Supreme Court said that only weapons suited for military use are protected. In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected.

Of course none of these restrictions meet the "shall not be infringed" clause.

So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"? If you don't support "shall not be infringed" then do you really support the 2nd Amendment?

You might actually support a limited right (privilege) for some people to keep and bear some arms but that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment requires, "shall not be infringed".

Very many gun owners here, and across the nation, talk about reasonable infringements, calling them reasonable restrictions. Their hearts are in the right place; they're emotional about gun deaths and murdered children - more so than the gun grabbers on the left - so they ignore, or are otherwise willing to accept, reasonable infringements.

Gun owners and advocates of the right to keep and bear arms regularly talk about the emotionally-driven responses on the left while supporting gun control driven by their own emotions. Both are wrong. The Constitution must drive the law, not emotions.

Gun owners regularly point out that only the law-abiding obey the gun laws but then, out of emotion, support all sorts of gun control laws that have been proven to do nothing to reduce crime - but they just don't have the no-compromise commitment to their principles or to the 2nd Amendment to publicly call for the end of every infringement and to say that they're all unconstitutional.

So, I'll just say, as the title of this thread says, realizing this will be a hard pill for you to swallow and admit to yourselves, and other than perhaps one or two others on this site, perhaps one or two percent of other gun owners in the nation, no, you may be pro gun, you may like guns, but you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

I should be able to buy any weapon I want
Our civil rights are severely violated and curtailed


Shit you can get aks and hand grenades Ahhhhhnd Rpgs in western Europe dirt cheap
I think they're all illegal .........errrrr derp
I want an rpg ....I DEMAND my rights restored

 

[Vastator]

Christians. I believe Hindus. Maybe others.

So... Ready to stone to death your own daughter? Should she fuck Tommy tbe quarterback, without the Patriarchs permission? Pick a side...

 

[BackAgain]

So... Ready to stone to death your own daughter? Should she fuck Tommy tbe quarterback, without the Patriarchs permission? Pick a side...

I’m not sure you understand what anything on this topic is about.

Can you tell me wtf stoning anybody to death has to do with either topic?

 

[pknopp]

It actually does. "Normalcy" bias.

Word vomit. Nothing else. You just ramble and don't say a word where you disagree with me.

 

[Vastator]

Word vomit. Nothing else. You just ramble and don't say a word where you disagree with me.

I said, what I said. Whether you can justify a cogent response is o. You. Not me...

 

[pknopp]

I said, what I said. Whether you can justify a cogent response is o. You. Not me...

Since you didn't actually say anything, no I can not come up with a response.

 

[Vastator]

Since you didn't actually say anything, no I can not come up with a response.

Lol!!!

 

[woodwork201]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is ‘pro’- or ‘anti’- Second Amendment.

That a law might be ineffective doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional; this is a political argument, not legal.

It's not constitutional at all. Arguing in its defense, by the left and the right, is the political argument. Arguing for a feels-good-but-useless law is purely political.

To argue that the ban on felony litterers is constitutional is to argue that the Constitution is no more than a suggestion and has no power to actually limit government.

 

[the other mike]

The fact is, most gun owners support gun control. Most gun owners on this site, support gun control. As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.

You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

For the first 149 years in this country, no attempt was made by the Federal Government to restrict anyone not in prison or jail or a mental hospital from keeping and bearing arms. For the next 30 years, only violent felons were banned. Then in 1968, it became felony litterers as well.

What changed? Was it always acceptable under the Constitution?

For the first 202 years, no background checks were required; it wasn't necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

In Miller, the Supreme Court said that only weapons suited for military use are protected. In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected.

Of course none of these restrictions meet the "shall not be infringed" clause.

So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"? If you don't support "shall not be infringed" then do you really support the 2nd Amendment?

You might actually support a limited right (privilege) for some people to keep and bear some arms but that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment requires, "shall not be infringed".

Very many gun owners here, and across the nation, talk about reasonable infringements, calling them reasonable restrictions. Their hearts are in the right place; they're emotional about gun deaths and murdered children - more so than the gun grabbers on the left - so they ignore, or are otherwise willing to accept, reasonable infringements.

Gun owners and advocates of the right to keep and bear arms regularly talk about the emotionally-driven responses on the left while supporting gun control driven by their own emotions. Both are wrong. The Constitution must drive the law, not emotions.

Gun owners regularly point out that only the law-abiding obey the gun laws but then, out of emotion, support all sorts of gun control laws that have been proven to do nothing to reduce crime - but they just don't have the no-compromise commitment to their principles or to the 2nd Amendment to publicly call for the end of every infringement and to say that they're all unconstitutional.

So, I'll just say, as the title of this thread says, realizing this will be a hard pill for you to swallow and admit to yourselves, and other than perhaps one or two others on this site, perhaps one or two percent of other gun owners in the nation, no, you may be pro gun, you may like guns, but you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately our current government , particularly the Democrats -- don't give a shit about any of that ....they just want to take our guns.

 

[the other mike]

Unfortunately our current government , particularly the Democrats -- don't give a shit about any of that ....they just want to take our guns.

And we might as well catch the chase it's not just the Democrats ....it's a rogue federal government ,for lack of a better description.

 

[woodwork201]

Heller reaffirmed miller and Miller stated that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it would need to reasonable expectations to the efficiency of a militia. Meaning those AR 15s

Can you quote from Heller where they affirmed Miller?

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong. Suppressive fire is the primary purpose of full auto fire. Which makes it next to useless for a lone actor...

Where full-auto is really useless is in the hands of the police.

But it doesn't matter how useless it is in private hands; it is unconstitutional to infringe on the right to keep and bear them.

If there's a plane-load of Chinese paratroopers in the field behind you, you might wish you had a belt-fed squad gun (isn't that what they're called?) with a hundred thousand rounds.

What Miller and Heller both miss, in their attempts to justify their pre-disposed outcomes, is that the militia needs to have every terrible implement of war - just as the Founders wrote.

In order to be prepared to do the job called for in the Constitution, the militia needs more than their hunting rifles or their AR-15s. The 2nd Amendment protects the military weapons, the personal weapons, the cannons and artillery, and more.

 

[woodwork201]

Nothing I said has anything to do with what you said. To strip our right to due process would take a Constitutional Amendment.

You said the Court can strip their right as part of sentencing as long as they got due process. They can't. Because the Constitution forbids them from taking their right to keep and bear arms.

For Due Process to allow the government to take or infringe on any right, consider whether the right could be stripped without due process had the due process clauses not been in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

If the Constitution doesn't allow them to take the right if due process was never mentioned in the Constitution as amended, then they cannot take the right using due process since the due process is mentioned.

Due process does nothing to empower the Government to do anything. It protects the people from the abuse of government powers by not giving them their day in court.

 

[pknopp]

You said the Court can strip their right as part of sentencing as long as they got due process. They can't. Because the Constitution forbids them from taking their right to keep and bear arms.

No it doesn't and you can say they can't but we can point out where they do all the time. No, that doesn't necessarily make it right but the Constitutions only stipulation is against cruel and unusual.

For Due Process to allow the government to take or infringe on any right, consider whether the right could be stripped without due process had the due process clauses not been in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

There would be no way for the courts to do so but since they are there, there is.

If the Constitution doesn't allow them to take the right if due process was never mentioned in the Constitution as amended, then they cannot take the right using due process since the due process is mentioned.

Due process does nothing to empower the Government to do anything. It protects the people from the abuse of government powers by not giving them their day in court.

Odd, we can completely remove one's Constitutional right to free travel through due process.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That settles it. With all these changing manners and increase in crime, I need a machine gun too.

Shooting machine guns is fun. However, the ammo will put you into the poorhouse very quickly. For instance, fifty caliber BMG ammo is $3.00 a round and it’s easy to fire sixty rounds a minute. That’s a hundred eighty bucks a minute. I don’t know about you, but that’s too rich for my blood.

 

[woodwork201]

Nope. Nothing is absolute.

You understand nothing.

In other words, you can't tell from where the government of the people, by the people, for the people, got the authority and power to act outside of the Constitution. Got it.

 

[woodwork201]

Death may or may not be absolute.

And libertarians tend to assume that government means the right to use force. But I disagree with that formulation.

Neither of your would-be points says that the Constitution demands absolutes.

It's not what the Constitution demands; it's what the Constitution permits. How does the government get the power to do anything if not from the Constitution?