Gun Control Is NOT The Answer!

[woodwork201]

Correct!
But you're misrepresenting the argument, here. Those who cry for "taking away everyone's weapons" are in the minority, and have very little political power or chance of success. The majority of calls right now are for HB8, or age limits, or increasing other conditions or qualifications on who can buy which firearms.

Justice Scalia, in his Heller decision, noted that:

and

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

As ideas go, you have to admit, it's not completely bonkers.

Both you and Justice Scalia were completely wrong. The 2nd Amendment doesn't just secure the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment FORBIDS the government from infringing on the right.

In order to violate, or infringe, on the right to keep and bear arms, or to force or enforce limits, the government would have to act on authority they explicitly do not have. Nothing in the Constitution was ever intended to grant the government authority not explicitly granted in the Constitution - how could it. To do so would have nullified the Constitution immediately upon it's enactment.

 

[woodwork201]

Government control is never the answer

Off topic but I've just got to say, your avatar and your screen name are awesome!

 

[woodwork201]

Good heavens, no. Even if Congress voted 535-0 against gun ownership tomorrow, the last thing I'd want is door-to-door collection squads.

To be clear, it is increasing conditions or qualifications to buy firearms that is a non-bonkers idea. Collecting them by legislative fiat would be absolute bonkerness on several levels.

And the conditions and qualifications get ever more restrictive until there are no new gun sales at all. Then the conditions on the red-flag laws start a slow journey down the same slope as gun purchases.

Gun laws only strip guns from the law abiding. What you're proposing won't give you the results you think it will unless your goal is purely to disarm the law-abiding and enable complete tyranny.

 

[woodwork201]

We don’t have to ban them but regulate them ( guns not clothing but clothing could also be added ) can be done and you do realize if has been done before?

So banning does no good but regulating them can be more effective…

Regulate them how? What regulation that doesn't keep the guns out of a law-abiding citizen could possibly do anything at all - good or bad? Law breakers don't care, they'll still have them. Regulating them in a way that keeps them out of people's hands is not regulation, it's banning them. So tell us what regulations would keep criminals from killing people.

 

[woodwork201]

Truth HURTS

Just read an interview with a RETIRED MALE TEACHER who agrees 100%

You just read the opinion of one man and you cite that as evidence that teachers shouldn't be armed? That makes two of you. Now what?

 

[woodwork201]

You're a liar like always. ALWAYS!

So you suggested arming teachers but you don't really want them to have guns? I don't get it. Are you trying to soften the expression of your views so the leftists don't think you're a wacko?

 

[woodwork201]

Where in the Second does it say that only some people can keep and bear arms? What does it say?

Shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says Rights may be stripped permanently.

It does say you can be deprived of life, liberty, and property only by sue process of law. But we are not taking about liberties. We are talking about rights.

So when a person gets out of prison that individual must have all rights returned to them. The right to vote. The right to keep and bear arms.

That is what the Constitution says. And that is what our Founders did.

Show me where I am wrong.

Actually, the 15th Amendment allows, but doesn't require, that the right to vote be stripped in the case of serious crime. It is the only right that the Constitution allows to be stripped for criminals and yet it's the one the left wants most to give them back.

But you're right on all the rest. No one would argue that a person having been convicted of a crime suddenly can be jailed for future crimes without a trial and jury of their peers or that they can be deprived of a lawyer or that their home can be searched for anything at any time after a conviction. And yet they think that they can strip the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[woodwork201]

If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.

Not true. But if you believe so, why are you even in this conversation? According to you, the Constitution is already a red-flag law and all that's needed is whatever the government decides is due process to take your guns for any reason.

If the government can take any right with "due process" then a judge can order you imprisoned without a trial because, for any reason the government chooses, they can strip your right to a trial by jury of peers. And you can't fight it because they stripped you of the right to an attorney. And you can't challenge the due process because they stripped you of the right to due process.

Just like the general welfare clause, the due process clauses grant no power or authority to the government. Due process simply means that the other powers of government to take life, liberty, or property, are not plenary power that can be exercised by a stroke of the President's pen but that, instead, when exercising the power and authority granted elsewhere there must be due process.

It amazes me that people believe such stupid shit.

​

 

[woodwork201]

Liar, i don't usually bother with you filth but ok. Now I know you will just spew and deflect and lie more, but it'll just show what you are even more.


The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. So, when people commit crimes and end up in prison, they loose that right among other things. The 2nd doesn't apply to those people. Now, spew! Spew it! Lie lie! Lmao.

You've never actually read the Constitution, have you? The 2nd Amendment says nothing at all of what you think it says.

Constitution or not, 2nd Amendment or not, all people, everywhere in the world, have the right to keep and bear arms. Almost every country in the world infringes on that right or otherwise bans the exercise of the right but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. Self defense from armed attack by criminals as well as defense from tyranny of government are fundamental human rights, often infringed but never stripped.

What the 2nd Amendment says is simply that within the United States purview, that right can not be infringed.

Since the powers of the government are only those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The Necessary and Proper clause explicitly restricts congressional power to enacting those laws necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers.

Do you believe that the Congress has the power to do anything it wishes and there are zero constitutional constraints on Congress? If not from the Constitution, then, from where does government get it's power and authority over the people? Is it natural power that they are born into like a king? Who gave any set of people the power and authority to govern?

Or do you believe that Congress and the Government are limited by the Constitution? If so, where in the Constitution do they get the power or authority to act outside of the Constitution? If it was the Constitution that created government, how did government get power not in the Constitution? If they are created by the Constitution, and they were, then they must absolutely be limited by the Constitution.

So if they are limited by the Constitution, where do they get the power to strip anyone of any right? Please quote the constitutional clause that gives such a power.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.

If you believe gun control is not the answer but every country with gun control, enjoys using guns and low gun incidents, you need to re-evaluate

 

[frigidweirdo]

I already know that a lot of liberals on here are going to disagree with me about this with the recent shootings,.. but what is taking away everybody's weapons going to solve? That's only going to cause war and chaos with everybody (rightfully) being upset with their constitutional rights being taken away, and especially now with the wide open border they're only going to find ways to smuggle weapons into the country illegally just like they have done time and time again with drugs, so I honestly don't see the point of trying to take them away.

Gun control is not the answer.

We know this for a FACT.

The facts are....

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United States, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

USA - not much gun control, easy availability of guns, even for criminals.
12.09 gun deaths per 100,000
21.05 male guns deaths per 100,000 males
4.38 gun homicides per 100,000 people

UK - a lot of gun control, quite difficult for an individual to get a hold of a gun, very hard for criminals to get hold of guns
0.17 gun deaths per 100,000 (71.1 times higher in the USA per capita)
0.32 male guns deaths per 100,000 males
0.02 gun homicides per 100,000 people (219 times higher)

Yep, we know gun control doesn't work, because it clearly doesn't fucking work in the UK. I mean, only 219 times (per capita) lower murder rate. Pathetic. Nothing at all. A minor technicality there.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Are you fucking kidding? you killed animals and songbirds to act out on your feelings? I'm not really for red-flag laws but you're a poster child for those who are for them. I might even go along in your case.

You're a sick mother fucker.

Generally well known that serial killers get their start on the neighbors' pets. Even Canadian ones. What's Canada's equivalent of the FBI?

 

[flan327]

Well, it's okay that you feel that way.

Condescending witch

 

[flan327]

Generally well known that serial killers get their start on the neighbors' pets. Even Canadian ones. What's Canada's equivalent of the FBI?

The Mounties

Lol

 

[Blues Man]

Gun control is not the answer.

We know this for a FACT.

The facts are....

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United States, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

USA - not much gun control, easy availability of guns, even for criminals.
12.09 gun deaths per 100,000
21.05 male guns deaths per 100,000 males
4.38 gun homicides per 100,000 people

UK - a lot of gun control, quite difficult for an individual to get a hold of a gun, very hard for criminals to get hold of guns
0.17 gun deaths per 100,000 (71.1 times higher in the USA per capita)
0.32 male guns deaths per 100,000 males
0.02 gun homicides per 100,000 people (219 times higher)

Yep, we know gun control doesn't work, because it clearly doesn't fucking work in the UK. I mean, only 219 times (per capita) lower murder rate. Pathetic. Nothing at all. A minor technicality there.

the UK has always had a lower murder rate than the US even before all their draconian gun laws were passed in the 60's.

In 1950 the US murder rate was about what it is today
In 1950 the UK murder rate was about what it is today.

The US has since 1950 tried an assault weapon ban, has imposed BG checks to be performed by licensed dealers and has passed thousands of gun laws and yet the murder rate is still what it was in 1950.

The UK has since 1950 banned entire classes of firearms, restricts almost everyone from owning firearms and yet their murder rate is still about what it was in 1950.

Gun laws have made absolutely no difference on murder rates.

 

[miketx]

You've never actually read the Constitution, have you? The 2nd Amendment says nothing at all of what you think it says.

Constitution or not, 2nd Amendment or not, all people, everywhere in the world, have the right to keep and bear arms. Almost every country in the world infringes on that right or otherwise bans the exercise of the right but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. Self defense from armed attack by criminals as well as defense from tyranny of government are fundamental human rights, often infringed but never stripped.

What the 2nd Amendment says is simply that within the United States purview, that right can not be infringed.

Since the powers of the government are only those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The Necessary and Proper clause explicitly restricts congressional power to enacting those laws necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers.

Do you believe that the Congress has the power to do anything it wishes and there are zero constitutional constraints on Congress? If not from the Constitution, then, from where does government get it's power and authority over the people? Is it natural power that they are born into like a king? Who gave any set of people the power and authority to govern?

Or do you believe that Congress and the Government are limited by the Constitution? If so, where in the Constitution do they get the power or authority to act outside of the Constitution? If it was the Constitution that created government, how did government get power not in the Constitution? If they are created by the Constitution, and they were, then they must absolutely be limited by the Constitution.

So if they are limited by the Constitution, where do they get the power to strip anyone of any right? Please quote the constitutional clause that gives such a power.

Excellent off base remark, having nothing to do with what I said.

 

[miketx]

So you suggested arming teachers but you don't really want them to have guns? I don't get it. Are you trying to soften the expression of your views so the leftists don't think you're a wacko?

Excellent comment having nothing to do with what I said.

 

[miketx]

Find the flaw in THAT!

No one will cooperate long enough to do that.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Condescending witch

Well, at least you have an opinion.

 

[SavannahMann]

If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.

Preposterous.

The Founders never intended any such restriction on the rights. In fact. They expressly forbade it.

New York in 1786 mandated that any Able Bodied Male who was qualified for Military service be required to own a suitable firearm.

And we have drafted Felons into the military over the centuries of history.

World War II felons who had served their sentence were drafted. So the idea that the Founders believed or intended that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute garbage.

Freedom vs Liberty

Tim Lewis

hhjonline.com

Even Gun Control believers in history have agreed that Military Type Arms were allowed to be owned by the citizens.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

And that was the law that restricted automatic weapons. Restricted but not banned.