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

[rightwinger]

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

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

What part of in many states it is illegal to do just that did you not understand?

And you don't seem to realize a straw purchase is already a federal crime.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

What part of in many states it is illegal to do just that did you not understand?

And you don't seem to realize a straw purchase is already a federal crime.

Some states?

Another loophole

Why not require background checks on ALL purchases and be done with it?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

Again, the point I was getting at is not whether the rights are absolute, but rather the ability of governments to limit the practice of them in ways which preserve the rights of others when such absolute practice poses a danger, disturbs the peace or otherwise poses a menace to society or a detriment to law and order.

You keep going back to arguing whether or not the rights are absolute.
This is a foregone conclusion because if they weren't, no one would have bothered to enshrine them in a constitutional amendment which defines them.

And again, it comes down to analogies like the "free speech" analogy, the yelling of "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, the speaking or writing of a threat to the life of the President or other elected officials, and the making of terrorist threats.

Any government, indeed any private individual or business owner, may impose limits on the practice and enjoyment of any right if due process is followed, and you even posted several quotes which outline this in detail.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

Depends on whether or not the people agree on whether those rights should be restored.
That's currently in process, and whether you like it or not, chances are pretty good that the majority will agree that such misuse constitutes a lifetime ban on exercising those rights.

You know what, it sounds like I may be arguing with a sovereign citizen.

 

[Humorme]

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.

Depends on whether or not the people agree on whether those rights should be restored.
That's currently in process, and whether you like it or not, chances are pretty good that the majority will agree that such misuse constitutes a lifetime ban on exercising those rights.

You know what, it sounds like I may be arguing with a sovereign citizen.

Currently, I don't have any leanings, connections to, nor am familiar with what current day sovereign citizens are saying.

I can trace my philosophy back to the founders and the many public utterances that went into establishing our Republic.

The government has the power to do damn near anything it wants. It doesn't always have the authority. The current laws say that the government has no duty to protect me as an individual.

That being the case, you cannot tell me the value of my life by telling me what kind of "Arms" I can or cannot have.

 

[Humorme]

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.

Again, the point I was getting at is not whether the rights are absolute, but rather the ability of governments to limit the practice of them in ways which preserve the rights of others when such absolute practice poses a danger, disturbs the peace or otherwise poses a menace to society or a detriment to law and order.

You keep going back to arguing whether or not the rights are absolute.
This is a foregone conclusion because if they weren't, no one would have bothered to enshrine them in a constitutional amendment which defines them.

And again, it comes down to analogies like the "free speech" analogy, the yelling of "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, the speaking or writing of a threat to the life of the President or other elected officials, and the making of terrorist threats.

Any government, indeed any private individual or business owner, may impose limits on the practice and enjoyment of any right if due process is followed, and you even posted several quotes which outline this in detail.

You continue to misrepresent the facts. You have absolute Rights. They come with a price tag attached since other people, governments - even your own government, the LEO community and your neighbors are trying to take those Rights by hook or crook.

That is WHY you have a Second Amendment. But, let me see if I understand the position you're taking:

You have a Right to Life, but it isn't absolute since others can take it, so why should "we" let you have a Right to defend life or limb?

 

[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...

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

and we already have background checks

Most Republicans agree and most NRA members agree we need a real background check system not ruined by the GOP and you'll have a hard time finding a Democrat who wants to end the 2nd Amendment. You dupes believe a lot of crap.

 

[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...

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

More evidence that the system misses a lot of insane people LOL...

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Currently, I don't have any leanings, connections to, nor am familiar with what current day sovereign citizens are saying.

BS, you cite their ideals and even their religious theology (Christian Identity). You claim to be a preamble citizen and that the 14th A was illegally ratified.

I can trace my philosophy back to the founders and the many public utterances that went into establishing our Republic.

No you can't, your interpretations are out of recognized academia and SCOTUS interpretation.

The government has the power to do damn near anything it wants. It doesn't always have the authority. The current laws say that the government has no duty to protect me as an individual.

That's because you have the right yourself, it's called self defense, and if your life is taken by the other, then they will be charged with a crime.

That being the case, you cannot tell me the value of my life by telling me what kind of "Arms" I can or cannot have.

Sure we and the govt can.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Currently, I don't have any leanings, connections to, nor am familiar with what current day sovereign citizens are saying.

BS, you cite their ideals and even their religious theology (Christian Identity). You claim to be a preamble citizen and that the 14th A was illegally ratified.

BINGO! Preamble citizen? 14th illegally ratified?
That's a sovereign citizen.
I do not waste time speaking to or arguing, or even debating with sov-cits.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

What part of in many states it is illegal to do just that did you not understand?

And you don't seem to realize a straw purchase is already a federal crime.

Some states?

Another loophole

Why not require background checks on ALL purchases and be done with it?

Actually a straw purchase is a federal crime.

Hey you people are the ones who say states have the right to restrict certain guns or certain size magazines and you're all fine with that but let the states regulate their own gun sales and you get your panties in a twist.

So let's do this. All gun laws are to be federal laws and no state can put additional restrictions on any gun owner than those that are federal law.

But that also means the CCW permit I get will be federal and all states will have to honor it or it means abolishing the CCW permit altogether and allowing anyone legally eligible to own a firearm to carry that firearm as he sees fit.

Then let's pass and enforce some really strict laws on gun crime all to be a minimum of 10 years and up to and including life to be served with no parole

 

[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

Most Republicans agree and most NRA members agree we need a real background check system not ruined by the GOP and you'll have a hard time finding a Democrat who wants to end the 2nd Amendment. You dupes believe a lot of crap.

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

 

[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

More evidence that the system misses a lot of insane people LOL...

Pot kettle there, Corky.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

So what? It's always conservatives who want to do equally ridiculous things.
A complete and total ban on firearms is impossible.
Not only is it impossible, it's a violation of the 2A.
Not only is it in violation of the 2A, it would also be impossible to enforce.

It's not always "The Democrats", it's SOME Democrats, and those Democrats have a loose grip
on the reality of the situation, that being we have 320 million guns in this country and they're not going
anywhere. We desperately need to regulate their ownership and use but even that will have to be based in common sense, and backed up by education, and it has to earn the support of the people.

The most important thing we need to accomplish regarding guns in this country is to reestablish the kind of respect we used to have for firearms in the past. That means doing away with the toxic gun culture we have right now. People with a clean record and demonstrated responsibility should not have to encounter any trouble regarding firearm ownership and use. We managed to do this for centuries, so it is not impossible.

Guns are not, nor should they be, a political issue. They are a security issue and a health issue and their ownership and use are constitutionally protected activities for sound, law abiding American citizens.
It is up to us as a society to rethink the notions of a healthy respect for guns.
Right now, society's views on guns are distorted from all sides.
Skull Pilot, I think that there is a majority of liberals who are willing to compromise and support
the Second Amendment under reasonable rules and regs, so the important thing is to not concentrate on the extremists, but rather to seek out common ground across the divide between liberals and conservatives on this and many other issues.

It CAN be done.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

So what? It's always conservatives who want to do equally ridiculous things.
A complete and total ban on firearms is impossible.
Not only is it impossible, it's a violation of the 2A.
Not only is it in violation of the 2A, it would also be impossible to enforce.

It's not always "The Democrats", it's SOME Democrats, and those Democrats have a loose grip
on the reality of the situation, that being we have 320 million guns in this country and they're not going
anywhere. We desperately need to regulate their ownership and use but even that will have to be based in common sense, and backed up by education, and it has to earn the support of the people.

The most important thing we need to accomplish regarding guns in this country is to reestablish the kind of respect we used to have for firearms in the past. That means doing away with the toxic gun culture we have right now. People with a clean record and demonstrated responsibility should not have to encounter any trouble regarding firearm ownership and use. We managed to do this for centuries, so it is not impossible.

Guns are not, nor should they be, a political issue. They are a security issue and a health issue and their ownership and use are constitutionally protected activities for sound, law abiding American citizens.
It is up to us as a society to rethink the notions of a healthy respect for guns.
Right now, society's views on guns are distorted from all sides.

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

I don't think we are all that far apart on that, to be honest.
The devil is in the details, because the various states have a wide latitude on those details, but I think I see solid ground.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

PS: By the way, I think the idea of making a CCW permit national in jurisdiction is a sound one.
Of course, the criteria that determines eligibility for a CCW will need to be ironed out, but as you said,
"Let's do this".
I'll buy that for a dollar.

 

[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...

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

and we already have background checks

Most Republicans agree and most NRA members agree we need a real background check system not ruined by the GOP and you'll have a hard time finding a Democrat who wants to end the 2nd Amendment. You dupes believe a lot of crap.

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

Nobody wants to ban firearms.

 

[Humorme]

Currently, I don't have any leanings, connections to, nor am familiar with what current day sovereign citizens are saying.

BS, you cite their ideals and even their religious theology (Christian Identity). You claim to be a preamble citizen and that the 14th A was illegally ratified.

BINGO! Preamble citizen? 14th illegally ratified?
That's a sovereign citizen.
I do not waste time speaking to or arguing, or even debating with sov-cits.

Like I said, don't follow them, so don't know. What I know was learned in an accredited law school. You don't want to have a conversation with me, that's fine.