A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[ABikerSailor]

The second amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms only to some people.

So, in other words, you don't have a problem with people like Cho and Laughtner (who were proven to have mental problems) owning guns?

Were they disquialified from purchasing/ownership/posession by federal law?

How about convicted felons? Can they own guns too?

Due Process.

If people are as disturbed as Cho and Laughtner were, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, especially if they are found to be mentally deficient somehow by a certified psychologist.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeeebus gun nuts are brainwashed/functional idiots at this point... Reagan wanted a ban on assault weapons, Scalia said of course you could limit the kind of firearms, no one's talking about confiscating waepons but you... and rifles and shotguns are plenty gd it ANYWAY- relax.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Reagan wanted a ban on assault weapons, Scalia said of course you could limit the kind of firearms...

Both of these statements are lies.
I love it when anti-gun loons have to lie to make a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, in other words, you don't have a problem with people like Cho and Laughtner (who were proven to have mental problems) owning guns?

Were they disquialified from purchasing/ownership/posession by federal law?

How about convicted felons? Can they own guns too?

Due Process.

If people are as disturbed as Cho and Laughtner were, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, especially if they are found to be mentally deficient somehow by a certified psychologist.

You did not answer the question:
Were they disquialified from purchasing/ownership/posession by federal law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government has the authority to exercise its power to protect the safety and security of the people, even if it means that the government must impose limits on rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.

That is one of the reasons we have a judiciary - to arbitrate disputes that might arise when such conflicting interests collide.

The federal government does not have the authority to tell anyone what to do, period. The reason for that is pretty simple, the only authority the government has comes from the consent of the people it governs. When it has to resort to using force it loses consent, and thus all legitimate authority over those it uses force upon. The only reason we have a judiciary is to prevent the government from losing its authority by preventing it from using force on anyone who is not in armed rebellion against it.

Unfortunately, everyone forgot to read the Declaration of Independence, and I am forced to deal with the government idiots like you want to use to bring everyone into line with your idiotic concepts. Feel free to spout and posture, it just makes me look even more intelligent than I am.

You really are an idiot. The federal government has the authority to tell people what to do because the people delegate that authority to the federal government.

Stop talking.

"The people" have no more right to decide to give the government the authority to tell other people what to do that it does to tell people they are slaves. If the government uses force on one person in order to get its way it is wrong, even if everyone else on the planet agrees with it.

Once you understand that principle you will be qualified to actually discuss what is, and is not, legitimate government action.

Yes, that means taxes are evil, all of them. Everything the government does is evil, period, some of it just happens to be necessary. The less the government does, the less evil there is in the world.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jeeebus gun nuts are brainwashed/functional idiots at this point... Reagan wanted a ban on assault weapons, Scalia said of course you could limit the kind of firearms, no one's talking about confiscating waepons but you... and rifles and shotguns are plenty gd it ANYWAY- relax.

the Constitution does not say or imply we have the right to bear tiny ineffective arms while the government liberals have unlimited weapons.

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really are an idiot. The federal government has the authority to tell people what to do because the people delegate that authority to the federal government.

Stop talking.

The federal government has the authority to act within its enumerated powers and it never has the authority to violate our inalienable rights.

I certainly don't remember having ever delegated to the federal government the authority to ignore my basic civil rights. Pretty sure the social contract I signed on to involved the federal government functioning as a servant of ME, not the other way around.

Some people believe that they have the authority to decide to give up your rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Prior restraint has nothing to do with criminal background checks. I don't know where you heard that nonsense, or why you keep repeating it.

A background check to determine one's qualification to own a firearm is not prior restraint because:

The person who is qualified to own a firearm is not prevented from doing so.

The person who is not qualified to own a firearm does not have a right to exercise, so he is not being denied a right. He has already disqualified himself before the fact.

The second amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms only to some people.

So, in other words, you don't have a problem with people like Cho and Laughtner (who were proven to have mental problems) owning guns?

How about convicted felons? Can they own guns too? I mean, they ARE U.S. citizens, who according to you, have the right to bear arms, because everyone is allowed to have a gun.

Are you aware that felony conviction is not a lifetime bar to owning weapons? That's right, it is actually possible for a person with a felony record to legally purchase firearms in this country, despite your abject ignorance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, in other words, you don't have a problem with people like Cho and Laughtner (who were proven to have mental problems) owning guns?

Were they disquialified from purchasing/ownership/posession by federal law?

How about convicted felons? Can they own guns too?

Due Process.

If people are as disturbed as Cho and Laughtner were, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, especially if they are found to be mentally deficient somehow by a certified psychologist.

Here is a fact that might get you to rethink your position, it seems that psychiatrists can only predict violence about 30% of the time. That means they get it wrong 70% of the time, which effectively means you want to bar 70% of the people who are not going to go off from owning guns, while simultaneously allowing 70% of the people who will go off to own guns. That seems pretty stupid to me, but I can actually think.

 

[jillian]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".

i'd suggest you actually look at heller which specifically leaves room for such regulation.

and the comparison is a false one as there is no problem with 'voter fraud' except in the fevered imagination of the right.. not to mention that your own people made the mistake of saying they wanted it in order to sway election results.

but that's ok, right?

I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

 

[Pheonixops]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

District of Columbia v Heller was an awful decision and not the law of the land.

In that case SCOTUS reduced a right to a privilege.

IT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

What the "LAW OF THE LAND" in your opinion? Will your answer be; "THE CONSTITUTION!"? My question will be; "Who interprets the Constitutionality of laws?". Why was the Heller decision awful? Did you read Scalia's opinion?

 

[Cecilie1200]

They do that when they register to vote -- proof of address, proof of citizenship.

They they should have to show ID at the poll to prove they're the person who registered under that name.

What's so awful about that?

That was an artful dodge of the question. Let's try again:

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

Your premise is that voting and buying a gun are the same, so unless your as inconsistent as the people you're accusing of inconsistency,

you should want everyone to have a background check EACH TIME THEY VOTE.

You have already said you support background checks for EACH TIME SOMEONE BUYS A GUN.

Why aren't you being consistent?

It's funny how you think you're so clever.

Whoever told you you were did you no favor.

But continue your flailing. It's quite amusing.

We do background checks when people purchase guns because we are intending to deny at least certain people the ability to legally do so.

Are NYC and his leftist comrades planning to allow us to deny the ability to vote to certain people? Because it was my impression that they were virulently opposed to such an idea, which means background checks for voting would be unnecessary. Just a simple ID would work fine.

If, on the other hand, they are actually prepared to allow us to withhold voting privileges from certain people under certain circumstances, then I feel sure that we could reach an accommodation about doing background checks in order to vote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It could. But its point is irrelevant.

Nonsense. You claim you support the right to own weapons, then say the government can put a burdensome requirement on gun owners which will limit their usefulness as defensive weapons.

I don't think you know what you want.

I personally dont care if you own a gun or not, with a lock or not. Its not important to me either way.

What im doing is stating the reality of the situation. The government can put these measures in place if they see fit.

My personal opinion really doesnt matter with what the actual laws are.

Why do leftists never understand the difference between "The government can do this" and "The government can do this legitimately"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reagan wanted a ban on assault weapons, Scalia said of course you could limit the kind of firearms...

Both of these statements are lies.
I love it when anti-gun loons have to lie to make a point.

I also don't give a **** even if they DID say it. As I keep pointing out, engaging in "name-dropper" or "celebrity" politics is a hallmark of leftists, who insist on venerating and worshipping their politicians, rather than merely admiring or respecting them. Thus, they are incapable of simply saying, "I like the guy, but I disagree with him sometimes". To them, "So and so said it" is the same as saying, "The Pope said it" to a Catholic.

Kinda funny, when you consider how much leftists hate religion.

 

[Pheonixops]

You just said it......................you can drive to another state (where you don't have residency), buy a gun (where you don't have to prove ID), and be on your way.

Thanks for the verification.

So what's your point other then posting a made up number?

40 percent of the gun sales in America today are done at gun shows......................

Do you think that there's something wrong with it?

 

[Pheonixops]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

Where does it say it is appropriate?

Supreme Court cases?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The federal government has the authority to act within its enumerated powers and it never has the authority to violate our inalienable rights.

I certainly don't remember having ever delegated to the federal government the authority to ignore my basic civil rights. Pretty sure the social contract I signed on to involved the federal government functioning as a servant of ME, not the other way around.

Some people believe that they have the authority to decide to give up your rights.

A brilliant man once said that even I do not have the authority to give up my freedom.

 

[jillian]

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".

i'd suggest you actually look at heller which specifically leaves room for such regulation.

and the comparison is a false one as there is no problem with 'voter fraud' except in the fevered imagination of the right.. not to mention that your own people made the mistake of saying they wanted it in order to sway election results.

but that's ok, right?

I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

cesspit... who fancies herself more knowledgeable about the constitution than any of our justices of the supreme court had no answer to the above..

so instead ...

Hi, you have received -387 reputation points from Cecilie1200.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Name-dropper politics: I\'m too stupid to think for myself, so I must find someone to do it for me, and WORSHIP them! I\'m not a leftist, though, so I don\'t work that way. You\'ll have to find an ACTUAL argument.

Regards,
Cecilie1200

wouldn't someone of even average intelligence know that heller was the case determining second amendment rights?

wouldn't someone of even average intelligence know that antonin scalia wrote the opinion of the court in that case?

so wouldn't someone of even average intelligence understand that citing to the lead case on the subject and the jurist who wrote that decision IS the argument?

what a psychotic loon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The reality is that mandating gun locks effectively disarms the owner.

And does nothing to stop gun crime.

irrelevant. You guys act as if the police are going to come in and inspect your homes every hour.
It says you must have a gun lock in washington D.c. Get the lock, put the gun beside you in bed without the lock if you need to. If someone comes to inspect( which i doubt happens.) put the lock on the gun.


YAY Logic.

The police seem to think they can come into people's house without a warrant, why should the fact that you think it is stupid for them to do it stop them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".

i'd suggest you actually look at heller which specifically leaves room for such regulation.

and the comparison is a false one as there is no problem with 'voter fraud' except in the fevered imagination of the right.. not to mention that your own people made the mistake of saying they wanted it in order to sway election results.

but that's ok, right?

I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

I disagree with Scalia.

Come to think of it, so do you.

Which one of us has more credibility at the moment?