CDZ Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

Yeah, of course...the whole conservative myth of the wimpy weak kneed liberal who is scared of the 2A is just so utterly re-goddam-diculous.
But it's just like trying to disprove conspiracy theories. People need to realize that it's impossible to debunk a conspiracy theory .... that is why it is a conspiracy theory and not fact or logical conclusion.

These people believe that Hillary is a gun grabbing lunatic who is also part of a self sustaining coven of satanists and child prostitution traffickers who work out of a pizzeria basement and there is no evidence to dissuade them otherwise .... remember they discovered that not only was there no child sex ring in the basement of the pizzeria, the place didn't even have a basement at all.
Remember how many Benghazi investigations and they want to investigate some more.

So it is impossible to dissuade a lot of conservatives of the notion that many liberals are actually okay with the 2A and just want some reasonable safety ideas baked in. Far as they're concerned we're ready to outlaw plastic cocktail forks and sharp pieces of paper, because we might get a paper cut from some killer.

 

[Humorme]

Any right can be denied via due process.

If you are convicted of a felony you cannot own a gun. Due process was followed.

That is the only restriction we need but it must be enforced

No rights are ever absolute either, it is impossible to allow 100% absolute leeway with any rights.
You can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and then claim your right to free speech.
Guns are power, guns are heavy responsibility, therefore access to that power demands responsibility, but I am certain that it is possible to preserve American's rights to own guns while requiring demonstration of responsibility.

We levy these requirements on people all the time. A crane operator should not be denied the right to employment however one must demonstrate that they are FIT TO BE a crane operator before being allowed to climb into the cab. Therefore only UNFIT crane operators should be kept away from the cab.

It just boils down to whether someone is fit to own firearms. The questions of their criminal background and mental stability are reasonable. No, it's not a guarantee that crazy folks or crooks won't get their hands on guns but it's a help.

You may be sincere in your beliefs, but you are sincerely wrong:



“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)



Another court ruling went further in their ruling:



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:



According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia



In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

Unalienable Rights are rooted in our foundational principles and first talked about in the Declaration of Independence. Of this document (the Declaration) Thomas Jefferson stated:

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” (all the above is excerpts from The Resistance Manual by The Resister)

I could go on, but we know your next move... might as well say it so we can discuss it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Any right can be denied via due process.

If you are convicted of a felony you cannot own a gun. Due process was followed.

That is the only restriction we need but it must be enforced

No rights are ever absolute either, it is impossible to allow 100% absolute leeway with any rights.
You can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and then claim your right to free speech.
Guns are power, guns are heavy responsibility, therefore access to that power demands responsibility, but I am certain that it is possible to preserve American's rights to own guns while requiring demonstration of responsibility.

We levy these requirements on people all the time. A crane operator should not be denied the right to employment however one must demonstrate that they are FIT TO BE a crane operator before being allowed to climb into the cab. Therefore only UNFIT crane operators should be kept away from the cab.

It just boils down to whether someone is fit to own firearms. The questions of their criminal background and mental stability are reasonable. No, it's not a guarantee that crazy folks or crooks won't get their hands on guns but it's a help.

You may be sincere in your beliefs, but you are sincerely wrong:



“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

This was not a Supreme Court ruling, it was a memorandum.
You don't think liberals read case law and haven't seen these before?
Law clerks can write memorandums.

Another court ruling went further in their ruling:


“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

It helps to break down these passages and analyze exactly what they mean.
For instance, "...are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it."
DOES NOT MEAN that persons are entitled to exercise their rights IN THE ABSOLUTE, it means that the rights ARE ABSOLUTELY THEIRS and CANNOT be TAKEN AWAY.
That's not the argument, the argument is whether any or all rights may be exercised to the absolute.

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Again, this is a passage which also goes into detail about preserving the rights of others while in the enjoyment of one's own rights, i.e. "my rights begin where yours end", which is sometimes the basis for local, state, city or county ordinances against acts such as "menacing" or "disturbing the peace".

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

You seem to be fond of making the assumption that I had stated that a government grants rights.
Nowhere have I said such a thing. I've simply asserted that no right may be considered absolute in practice, and that is equally enshrined into laws that seek to establish the public tranquility all the way up to laws which define eminent domain. Your God given rights may not be alienated or infringed but governments have the power to enforce the limitations on your exercise of them if they step on the toes of others or if said exercise can reasonably be interpreted as posing some measure of danger.

According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

State Supreme Court rulings?
Let's stick to United States Supreme Court rulings.
The Supremes do a terrific job of botching rulings as it is, what with Dredd Scot et al.
I'm not about to get mired down in Boss Hawg and his corner drugstore hangin' judges and what they think of "miscegenation" nor his rootin' tootin' homilies on states rights. That's a "whole notha thread thar, podnah."

I could go on, but we know your next move... might as well say it so we can discuss it.

Do you know "my next move?"
Well then, no need to debate it here at USMB, you could hold the entire debate yourself and I can just make popcorn while you play both roles.
Might as well say it? Naaah, if that's how you really feel, why bother?

The point I was getting at is, the term absolute isn't applied to the keeping and preserving of those rights, that's the entire reason they are enshrined in the Constitution, because government is responsible for securing and preserving them.
The term is applied to the individual exercise of those rights, to the extent which they might or might not infringe on the rights of others, or pose a clear and present danger, or cause undue and unreasonable distress to the peace and tranquility, or any other vexation to the public.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You may be sincere in your beliefs, but you are sincerely wrong:

Coming from the person that doesn't comprehend his own quoting's. SMFH

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)



Another court ruling went further in their ruling:



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:



According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia



In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

Unalienable Rights are rooted in our foundational principles and first talked about in the Declaration of Independence. Of this document (the Declaration) Thomas Jefferson stated:

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” (all the above is excerpts from The Resistance Manual by The Resister)

I could go on, but we know your next move... might as well say it so we can discuss it.

Not this ignorantly misrepresented bull shit again. Maybe you should take a class and learn to comprehend what your quotes actually mean.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The laws are not enforced that's the only problem with them

Casting blame as the sole cause of gun violence in America isn't convincing. Myriad issues are part of the causation:

1. The failure of the War on Drugs (and the fool who is now our AG, focusing on MJ enforcement and not enforcement of gun laws, is one prime example)
2. The NRA policy of no new gun laws, no way no how
3. People like you and others who see guns as a panacea and not a problem in reducing violence in America
4. The Republican Party using guns as a wedge issue and not seeking laws to mitigate gun violence in America.
5. The 2nd A. itself and the interpretation of it by using the weapons used in our revolutionary war by the Americans and the British*** with the firearms available to citizens of today.

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

We have thousands of gun laws on the books or didn't you know that? So yes a very big part of the problem is lack of enforcement.

The NRA is a red herring. The NRA does nothing but legally advocate and lobby on behalf if its members

I never said guns are a panacea for anything. In fact I have said what my personal philosophy on gun ownership and concealed carry are many times here.

What new laws would mitigate violence?

If you want to hold the bill or rights valid to only what existed in the 18th century then you won't have a problem with the government monitoring all your computer activity because after all computers didn't exist then either.

If we have thousands of guns laws that don't work, what's wrong with working with The People to police themselves? You've read my arguments before, and always defaulted to the words in the 2nd A., too wit: "Shall not be infringed"

To repeat myself for the Nth time:

• Allow each state to require a license for a resident to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, or not as each state decides;
• Require each firearm to be registered and insured within the confines of he state.
• Require every sale of a firearm to be sold to a licensed gun dealer, or, have a gun dealer broker the sale to a private person, who also needs to be licensed.
• For cause, every state can established the MQ's which qualify someone to be licensed to own, possess, etc. a firearm. Said license can be wither suspended or revoked for cause.
• An illegal transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, when proved in Court, said license shall be revoked for life.
• No one ever convicted of a crime of violence, domestic violence or other flaws of character - as decided by the state, will not be eligible to be licensed.

There is no need for registration.
It is already illegal in many states to sell to anyone not legally eligible to own a firearm. But I really have no problem with all sales being mediated by an FFL dealer. I don't sell my guns but if I did I would have an FFL broker all sales even if it was to a family member just to cover my own ass.

And when you start getting into arbitrary shit like "flaws of character" I have to say no way. Criminal records are enough we don't need some asshole denying people their rights on arbitrary bullshit.

All that needs to be done is to enforce the prohibitions on the books already and we need mandatory jail time for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm to be lengthy sentences to be served without parole. IOW do something to target the actual criminals and not treat law abiding people as such.

By flaws of character I did not meant to infer arbitrary sanctions, facts like Driving under the influence of Alcohol or other drugs, detained as a danger to him/her self or others (5150), making criminal threats, simple battery, drunk in public (647ff), dishonorable or bad conduct discharge are examples of the flaws I considered.

When any of those result in a criminal conviction or being adjudicated mentally ill by due process I agree

 

[Skull Pilot]

The laws are not enforced that's the only problem with them

Casting blame as the sole cause of gun violence in America isn't convincing. Myriad issues are part of the causation:

1. The failure of the War on Drugs (and the fool who is now our AG, focusing on MJ enforcement and not enforcement of gun laws, is one prime example)
2. The NRA policy of no new gun laws, no way no how
3. People like you and others who see guns as a panacea and not a problem in reducing violence in America
4. The Republican Party using guns as a wedge issue and not seeking laws to mitigate gun violence in America.
5. The 2nd A. itself and the interpretation of it by using the weapons used in our revolutionary war by the Americans and the British*** with the firearms available to citizens of today.

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

We have thousands of gun laws on the books or didn't you know that? So yes a very big part of the problem is lack of enforcement.

The NRA is a red herring. The NRA does nothing but legally advocate and lobby on behalf if its members

I never said guns are a panacea for anything. In fact I have said what my personal philosophy on gun ownership and concealed carry are many times here.

What new laws would mitigate violence?

If you want to hold the bill or rights valid to only what existed in the 18th century then you won't have a problem with the government monitoring all your computer activity because after all computers didn't exist then either.

If we have thousands of guns laws that don't work, what's wrong with working with The People to police themselves? You've read my arguments before, and always defaulted to the words in the 2nd A., too wit: "Shall not be infringed"

To repeat myself for the Nth time:

• Allow each state to require a license for a resident to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, or not as each state decides;
• Require each firearm to be registered and insured within the confines of he state.
• Require every sale of a firearm to be sold to a licensed gun dealer, or, have a gun dealer broker the sale to a private person, who also needs to be licensed.
• For cause, every state can established the MQ's which qualify someone to be licensed to own, possess, etc. a firearm. Said license can be wither suspended or revoked for cause.
• An illegal transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, when proved in Court, said license shall be revoked for life.
• No one ever convicted of a crime of violence, domestic violence or other flaws of character - as decided by the state, will not be eligible to be licensed.

There is no need for registration.
It is already illegal in many states to sell to anyone not legally eligible to own a firearm. But I really have no problem with all sales being mediated by an FFL dealer. I don't sell my guns but if I did I would have an FFL broker all sales even if it was to a family member just to cover my own ass.

And when you start getting into arbitrary shit like "flaws of character" I have to say no way. Criminal records are enough we don't need some asshole denying people their rights on arbitrary bullshit.

All that needs to be done is to enforce the prohibitions on the books already and we need mandatory jail time for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm to be lengthy sentences to be served without parole. IOW do something to target the actual criminals and not treat law abiding people as such.

What's your take on this:

SCOTUS Guts 2nd Amend. By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case

"Today the Supreme Court let stand the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Kolbe v. Hogan that semi-automatic rifles are not constitutionally protected “arms,” and in doing so declared the Second Amendment guarantees only a second-class right."

See more in the link above.

My take is there is absolutely no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic rifles have been available for civilian use of over 100 years and are not a major factor in crimes, violence or murder.

These ridiculous bans on so called "assault rifles" or "military style rifles" are beyond ludicrous as they are bans not on semiautomatic rifles but on cosmetic aspects that have absolutely no bearing on the rifle itself.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Any right can be denied via due process.

If you are convicted of a felony you cannot own a gun. Due process was followed.

That is the only restriction we need but it must be enforced

No rights are ever absolute either, it is impossible to allow 100% absolute leeway with any rights.
You can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and then claim your right to free speech.
Guns are power, guns are heavy responsibility, therefore access to that power demands responsibility, but I am certain that it is possible to preserve American's rights to own guns while requiring demonstration of responsibility.

We levy these requirements on people all the time. A crane operator should not be denied the right to employment however one must demonstrate that they are FIT TO BE a crane operator before being allowed to climb into the cab. Therefore only UNFIT crane operators should be kept away from the cab.

It just boils down to whether someone is fit to own firearms. The questions of their criminal background and mental stability are reasonable. No, it's not a guarantee that crazy folks or crooks won't get their hands on guns but it's a help.

If you are not a convicted criminal or adjudicated by due process to be mentally ill then you are fit to own firearms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have had a CCW permit since I was 21 but what good is taking a picture of a blacked out permit and what does it prove

Oh yeah it proves nothing at all

OK. So I believe you.


You don't believe me?

No why would I?

Anyone can say anything on the internet,

I don't know who you are( nor do I want to) so I have no reason to believe anything you say is true

Hmm. You have issues.

Would you please post a picture of your CCW permit here without blacking out your personal info. I'd like to verify that you have one.

Thanks.

Nope.

I really don't give a flying or any other kind of fuck if you believe I have a CCW permit or not

Of course you do. Why lie?

prove I give a fuck about what you think of me

 

[Humorme]

Any right can be denied via due process.

If you are convicted of a felony you cannot own a gun. Due process was followed.

That is the only restriction we need but it must be enforced

No rights are ever absolute either, it is impossible to allow 100% absolute leeway with any rights.
You can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and then claim your right to free speech.
Guns are power, guns are heavy responsibility, therefore access to that power demands responsibility, but I am certain that it is possible to preserve American's rights to own guns while requiring demonstration of responsibility.

We levy these requirements on people all the time. A crane operator should not be denied the right to employment however one must demonstrate that they are FIT TO BE a crane operator before being allowed to climb into the cab. Therefore only UNFIT crane operators should be kept away from the cab.

It just boils down to whether someone is fit to own firearms. The questions of their criminal background and mental stability are reasonable. No, it's not a guarantee that crazy folks or crooks won't get their hands on guns but it's a help.

You may be sincere in your beliefs, but you are sincerely wrong:



“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

This was not a Supreme Court ruling, it was a memorandum.
You don't think liberals read case law and haven't seen these before?
Law clerks can write memorandums.

Another court ruling went further in their ruling:


“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

It helps to break down these passages and analyze exactly what they mean.
For instance, "...are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it."
DOES NOT MEAN that persons are entitled to exercise their rights IN THE ABSOLUTE, it means that the rights ARE ABSOLUTELY THEIRS and CANNOT be TAKEN AWAY.
That's not the argument, the argument is whether any or all rights may be exercised to the absolute.

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Again, this is a passage which also goes into detail about preserving the rights of others while in the enjoyment of one's own rights, i.e. "my rights begin where yours end", which is sometimes the basis for local, state, city or county ordinances against acts such as "menacing" or "disturbing the peace".

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

You seem to be fond of making the assumption that I had stated that a government grants rights.
Nowhere have I said such a thing. I've simply asserted that no right may be considered absolute in practice, and that is equally enshrined into laws that seek to establish the public tranquility all the way up to laws which define eminent domain. Your God given rights may not be alienated or infringed but governments have the power to enforce the limitations on your exercise of them if they step on the toes of others or if said exercise can reasonably be interpreted as posing some measure of danger.

According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

State Supreme Court rulings?
Let's stick to United States Supreme Court rulings.
The Supremes do a terrific job of botching rulings as it is, what with Dredd Scot et al.
I'm not about to get mired down in Boss Hawg and his corner drugstore hangin' judges and what they think of "miscegenation" nor his rootin' tootin' homilies on states rights. That's a "whole notha thread thar, podnah."

I could go on, but we know your next move... might as well say it so we can discuss it.

Do you know "my next move?"
Well then, no need to debate it here at USMB, you could hold the entire debate yourself and I can just make popcorn while you play both roles.
Might as well say it? Naaah, if that's how you really feel, why bother?

The point I was getting at is, the term absolute isn't applied to the keeping and preserving of those rights, that's the entire reason they are enshrined in the Constitution, because government is responsible for securing and preserving them.
The term is applied to the individual exercise of those rights, to the extent which they might or might not infringe on the rights of others, or pose a clear and present danger, or cause undue and unreasonable distress to the peace and tranquility, or any other vexation to the public.

Fortunately, your opinion does not constitute the law.

Yes, we DO have absolute Rights. What I cited are not "memorandum" of law, but rather cites to actual court cases. They need not be United States Supreme Court cases in order to carry some form of authority.

The United States Supreme Court only intervenes when there are multiple rulings from different districts OR if they think the issue merits their attention. Today, they like to illegally reinterpret the law to make new law.... it's called legislating from the bench.

I was only surprised that you didn't rely on the Supreme Court to try and shoot down what I said... except that it became apparent you are not in the legal field. You even complained about United States rulings when I ended my rant with their interpretation of the lower courts rulings.

Just for chits and giggles, barring higher court rulings to the contrary, lower court opinions can be binding authority in their jurisdiction and persuasive authority in another. I'm using the rulings in chronological order to show what the intent of the law is - which proves your position wholly wrong. Maybe we'll do some more of this later.

 

[Humorme]

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Within all these words about absolute Rights, lies a concept that the left don't get. Since the government does not grant certain Rights, those issues are above their jurisdiction. If you misuse your Rights, government has the authority to temporarily suspend your Rights, but after you've been punished, their authority ceases. Case in point:

A guy in my neighborhood cussed out his wife on the carport and he even said "I'll effing kill you." Another guy heard it, called the police and our harried neighbor went to jail and got charged with a crime. Now, he has a Right to Freedom of Speech, but he misused it. So, he's going to prison. When he leaves prison, he can walk out and say anything he wants as he has a Right to Free Speech.

Likewise, under our de jure / lawful Constitution (IF interpreted correctly) could punish a person for the misuse of weapons, but after that individual had been punished and released from prison, he ought to be able to retain his guaranteed Rights. Otherwise, they are not worth the paper they're written on.

 

[Humorme]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

Yeah, of course...the whole conservative myth of the wimpy weak kneed liberal who is scared of the 2A is just so utterly re-goddam-diculous.
But it's just like trying to disprove conspiracy theories. People need to realize that it's impossible to debunk a conspiracy theory .... that is why it is a conspiracy theory and not fact or logical conclusion.

These people believe that Hillary is a gun grabbing lunatic who is also part of a self sustaining coven of satanists and child prostitution traffickers who work out of a pizzeria basement and there is no evidence to dissuade them otherwise .... remember they discovered that not only was there no child sex ring in the basement of the pizzeria, the place didn't even have a basement at all.
Remember how many Benghazi investigations and they want to investigate some more.

So it is impossible to dissuade a lot of conservatives of the notion that many liberals are actually okay with the 2A and just want some reasonable safety ideas baked in. Far as they're concerned we're ready to outlaw plastic cocktail forks and sharp pieces of paper, because we might get a paper cut from some killer.

I'd be willing to bet dollars against doughnuts that you would never admit that political groups sometimes create situations like the pizzeria fiasco in order to discredit ALL conspiracies.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Casting blame as the sole cause of gun violence in America isn't convincing. Myriad issues are part of the causation:

1. The failure of the War on Drugs (and the fool who is now our AG, focusing on MJ enforcement and not enforcement of gun laws, is one prime example)
2. The NRA policy of no new gun laws, no way no how
3. People like you and others who see guns as a panacea and not a problem in reducing violence in America
4. The Republican Party using guns as a wedge issue and not seeking laws to mitigate gun violence in America.
5. The 2nd A. itself and the interpretation of it by using the weapons used in our revolutionary war by the Americans and the British*** with the firearms available to citizens of today.

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

We have thousands of gun laws on the books or didn't you know that? So yes a very big part of the problem is lack of enforcement.

The NRA is a red herring. The NRA does nothing but legally advocate and lobby on behalf if its members

I never said guns are a panacea for anything. In fact I have said what my personal philosophy on gun ownership and concealed carry are many times here.

What new laws would mitigate violence?

If you want to hold the bill or rights valid to only what existed in the 18th century then you won't have a problem with the government monitoring all your computer activity because after all computers didn't exist then either.

If we have thousands of guns laws that don't work, what's wrong with working with The People to police themselves? You've read my arguments before, and always defaulted to the words in the 2nd A., too wit: "Shall not be infringed"

To repeat myself for the Nth time:

• Allow each state to require a license for a resident to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, or not as each state decides;
• Require each firearm to be registered and insured within the confines of he state.
• Require every sale of a firearm to be sold to a licensed gun dealer, or, have a gun dealer broker the sale to a private person, who also needs to be licensed.
• For cause, every state can established the MQ's which qualify someone to be licensed to own, possess, etc. a firearm. Said license can be wither suspended or revoked for cause.
• An illegal transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, when proved in Court, said license shall be revoked for life.
• No one ever convicted of a crime of violence, domestic violence or other flaws of character - as decided by the state, will not be eligible to be licensed.

There is no need for registration.
It is already illegal in many states to sell to anyone not legally eligible to own a firearm. But I really have no problem with all sales being mediated by an FFL dealer. I don't sell my guns but if I did I would have an FFL broker all sales even if it was to a family member just to cover my own ass.

And when you start getting into arbitrary shit like "flaws of character" I have to say no way. Criminal records are enough we don't need some asshole denying people their rights on arbitrary bullshit.

All that needs to be done is to enforce the prohibitions on the books already and we need mandatory jail time for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm to be lengthy sentences to be served without parole. IOW do something to target the actual criminals and not treat law abiding people as such.

By flaws of character I did not meant to infer arbitrary sanctions, facts like Driving under the influence of Alcohol or other drugs, detained as a danger to him/her self or others (5150), making criminal threats, simple battery, drunk in public (647ff), dishonorable or bad conduct discharge are examples of the flaws I considered.

When any of those result in a criminal conviction or being adjudicated mentally ill by due process I agree

I see ... so anyone who commits murder should not be allowed to possess a firearm. How original.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have thousands of gun laws on the books or didn't you know that? So yes a very big part of the problem is lack of enforcement.

The NRA is a red herring. The NRA does nothing but legally advocate and lobby on behalf if its members

I never said guns are a panacea for anything. In fact I have said what my personal philosophy on gun ownership and concealed carry are many times here.

What new laws would mitigate violence?

If you want to hold the bill or rights valid to only what existed in the 18th century then you won't have a problem with the government monitoring all your computer activity because after all computers didn't exist then either.

If we have thousands of guns laws that don't work, what's wrong with working with The People to police themselves? You've read my arguments before, and always defaulted to the words in the 2nd A., too wit: "Shall not be infringed"

To repeat myself for the Nth time:

• Allow each state to require a license for a resident to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, or not as each state decides;
• Require each firearm to be registered and insured within the confines of he state.
• Require every sale of a firearm to be sold to a licensed gun dealer, or, have a gun dealer broker the sale to a private person, who also needs to be licensed.
• For cause, every state can established the MQ's which qualify someone to be licensed to own, possess, etc. a firearm. Said license can be wither suspended or revoked for cause.
• An illegal transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, when proved in Court, said license shall be revoked for life.
• No one ever convicted of a crime of violence, domestic violence or other flaws of character - as decided by the state, will not be eligible to be licensed.

There is no need for registration.
It is already illegal in many states to sell to anyone not legally eligible to own a firearm. But I really have no problem with all sales being mediated by an FFL dealer. I don't sell my guns but if I did I would have an FFL broker all sales even if it was to a family member just to cover my own ass.

And when you start getting into arbitrary shit like "flaws of character" I have to say no way. Criminal records are enough we don't need some asshole denying people their rights on arbitrary bullshit.

All that needs to be done is to enforce the prohibitions on the books already and we need mandatory jail time for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm to be lengthy sentences to be served without parole. IOW do something to target the actual criminals and not treat law abiding people as such.

By flaws of character I did not meant to infer arbitrary sanctions, facts like Driving under the influence of Alcohol or other drugs, detained as a danger to him/her self or others (5150), making criminal threats, simple battery, drunk in public (647ff), dishonorable or bad conduct discharge are examples of the flaws I considered.

When any of those result in a criminal conviction or being adjudicated mentally ill by due process I agree

I see ... so anyone who commits murder should not be allowed to possess a firearm. How original.

So you somehow see what I said as only those convicted of murder should not be allowed a firearm?

Please explain that one.

 

[francoHFW]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

 

[Skull Pilot]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

 

[rightwinger]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

We do not have background checks if there are blatant exemptions to the rules

 

[Skull Pilot]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

We do not have background checks if there are blatant exemptions to the rules

Funny I have had a check run on every firearm purchase I have ever made

 

[rightwinger]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

We do not have background checks if there are blatant exemptions to the rules

Funny I have had a check run on every firearm purchase I have ever made

From a private party?

 

[Skull Pilot]

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

We do not have background checks if there are blatant exemptions to the rules

Funny I have had a check run on every firearm purchase I have ever made

From a private party?

I never buy guns from anyone other than a dealer.

But in many states it is illegal to privately sell a firearm to anyone not legally eligible to buy one.

This is and remains a state issue