CDZ Gun Control

[Abatis]

Calm down, the 2nd is ambiguous. Poorly written and easy to comport to everybody's POV.

The only people who say it is ambiguous are those who desire to explain away why it is there and what it does.

Actually, the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment; it is a pre-existing right, thus the right to arms does not in any manner depend upon the Constitution for its existence.

So, the ambiguousness you read into it, to purposely confuse yourself, is entirely self-inflicted and the conditions and qualifications and restrictions you want to invent from your confusion, are anti-constitutional.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First, that's not how it works in CA. . . .

Well, #1, I'm not talking about what happens after people get a felony conviction; I'm talking about pre-trial / no trial programs that see felonies reduced and convictions eliminated upon completion of probations. I'm talking about the process before the case comes before a judge for sentencing.

I'm glad to hear that Cali is so efficient that it has no issue with recidivism.

I've read your first paragraph three times and come away with the sense I've read a word salad rant.

When an individual is convicted of a felony (not a wobbler) many are not eligible for probation. See the following, something a curious person would do. Something a willfully ignorant person will ignore.

California Penal Code - PEN § 1192.7 | FindLaw

California Penal Code - PEN § 667.5 | FindLaw

Now that you're informed, I'll explain the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor and what can be filed as one or the other.

A "Wobbler" is a crime which is eligible for probation and one wherein the Penal Code provides for a loss of liberty of less than one year and for a base term of 16 month, two or three years.

Under a year means the County Jail, the others mean St. Prison. Those sentence on a felony, and granted probation (generally for 3 years) can have the crime reduced to a Misdemeanor per 17PC, and even receive a Change of plea (1203.4 PC).

Now that you have a fundamental knowledge you can stop being a smart ass and stop exposing your self as an ignoramus by posting your biases as facts.

One final point. Those convicted of felonies are legally denied the so called rights you claim as sacrosanct. No one is allowed to enter The Capital or the White House with a gun, or any court house, jail, etc. Thus this 'RIGHT' is infringed and rightly so.

 

[Abatis]

I've read your first paragraph three times and come away with the sense I've read a word salad rant.

When an individual is convicted of a felony (not a wobbler) many are not eligible for probation. . . .

The fact that you have wobbled the goalposts and moved them so far that you are discussing California after some one is CONVICTED of a felony, is why you can not comprehend my paragraph.

My statements remain in the context of post 174 (which you should go back and refresh your memory as to what I quoted from you and what I said) In that post I quoted the Police Chief of St Louis talking about how he can't get repeated gun violators off the streets because of prosecutorial case clearance shenanigans:

____________________________
St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."
__________________________

So they are arrested for a felony gun crime and it vaporizes, over and over again . . .

If you don't have anything to say pertaining to my example or that situation I'll just say I really don't care how they do it in California. I'm glad it is working for you and you have no repeat gun offenders.

See the following, something a curious person would do. Something a willfully ignorant person will ignore.

Now that you're informed,

Now that you have a fundamental knowledge you can stop being a smart ass and stop exposing your self as an ignoramus by posting your biases as facts.

Mind your insults, remember, you were the one who brought this the Clean Debates to avoid the the kind of crap you just spewed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've read your first paragraph three times and come away with the sense I've read a word salad rant.

When an individual is convicted of a felony (not a wobbler) many are not eligible for probation. . . .

The fact that you have wobbled the goalposts and moved them so far that you are discussing California after some one is CONVICTED of a felony, is why you can not comprehend my paragraph.

My statements remain in the context of post 174 (which you should go back and refresh your memory as to what I quoted from you and what I said) In that post I quoted the Police Chief of St Louis talking about how he can't get repeated gun violators off the streets because of prosecutorial case clearance shenanigans:

____________________________
St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."
__________________________

So they are arrested for a felony gun crime and it vaporizes, over and over again . . .

If you don't have anything to say pertaining to my example or that situation I'll just say I really don't care how they do it in California. I'm glad it is working for you and you have no repeat gun offenders.

See the following, something a curious person would do. Something a willfully ignorant person will ignore.

Now that you're informed,

Now that you have a fundamental knowledge you can stop being a smart ass and stop exposing your self as an ignoramus by posting your biases as facts.

Mind your insults, remember, you were the one who brought this the Clean Debates to avoid the the kind of crap you just spewed.

I posted facts and opinions based on 32 years experience. What career / personal experience do you bring to the table?

I know states differ, I was a paid consultant with the National Institute of Corrections along with my management job in CA.

Yes, the clean zone, I give what I receive, plus I defend what I believe; thus pointing out willful ignorance and calling your a smart ass is far from violating the spirit of the CZ.

BTW, if some agencies in Missouri don't report arrests to the FBI data base your comment in red may be correct (I don't know what they do in Missouri). If they are reported to the FBI, the arrest, conviction and disposition(s) will be noted and applicable in Federal Court.

In CA, and I suspect in most states, a sealed record still exists and can be opened by court order. If such a record is opened, it's value to enhance a jail/prison term is likely null, but the fact of the offense will influence the PO's report and recommendation and, likely the sentence of the court.

 

[Abatis]

I posted facts and opinions based on 32 years experience. What career / personal experience do you bring to the table?

I didn't dispute any of your facts, I just didn't understand why you thought --what happens in California-- had any pertinence to what I posted / said.

I don't need to invent an on-line persona, I let my posts define me.

I was a paid consultant with the National Institute of Corrections along with my management job in CA.

That many years in CA? I can understand your tunnel vision.

Yes, the clean zone, I give what I receive,

What have you "received" from me?

Did I make any comment that could in any way be described as personal?

plus I defend what I believe; thus pointing out willful ignorance and calling your a smart ass is far from violating the spirit of the CZ.

I defend my beliefs with tenacity; I exactingly quote what I am addressing and I try to destroy any possible on-point rebuttal before it can happen. When I point out willful ignorance I don't need to blow trumpets; either the deafening silence or the insults I receive is all the applause I need. I guess we know how you roll . . . Or are you still planning on replying to my other posts?

Post #170 in response to your OP would be a great start (beyond saying that the principle of conferred powers is not fundamental and foundational for the Constitution LOL)!

BTW, if some agencies in Missouri don't report arrests to the FBI data base your comment in red may be correct (I don't know what they do in Missouri). If they are reported to the FBI, the arrest, conviction and disposition(s) will be noted and applicable in Federal Court.

So, you were pointing out my "willful ignorance" of what; how a state that I was not discussing does things? And now you seem to be admitting that post 174 has merit and you took a flying leap in to a river of red herrings?

Thank you very much.

 

[Elvis Obama]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

"By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it."







Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

Sure you can. Prohibition? I'm not suggesting that taking away ri






By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

"Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or paramilitary force of our government."

You do know that's precisely what the 2nd amendment is for right? Protection against a tyrannical Government. Wether you believe it is possible or not is irrelevant history has shown that it can happen time and time again.

There are already background checks in place in every state in the Union, In each of those states there are laws in place that should stop shootings from happening so why are still occurring? Criminals do not follow the law. The gun control that some want will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice the Constitutional rights and when that happens that tyrannical Government you dismiss as unlikely will be here.

Yes, that was the purpose of the second amendment, and it was a wise provision in it s day. That day ended with the establishment of a standing army at the start of the Twentieth Century. Anyone who thinks that the same purpose is being served today is delusional. Anyone who thinks that laws (and that is all the constitution is, laws) will remain viable throughout all of history is ignorant of what law and government is. The same people who made the constitution made it amendable. It's up to us, the people who are alive, to determine whether any law on the books is still viable. All of this, of course, is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which is how to reduce gun violence.

The Constitution is not a set of laws. They are rights laws are written to uphold those rights not to take them away. .Even though the 2nd Amendment was for protection against a tyrannical Government the framers also had self-defence in mind, as well as later writings by them, show this. The Constitution is amendable but you still can not take a fundamental right away or weaken it.

"Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or paramilitary force of our government."

You do know that's precisely what the 2nd amendment is for right? Protection against a tyrannical Government. Wether you believe it is possible or not is irrelevant history has shown that it can happen time and time again.

There are already background checks in place in every state in the Union, In each of those states there are laws in place that should stop shootings from happening so why are still occurring? Criminals do not follow the law. The gun control that some want will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice the Constitutional rights and when that happens that tyrannical Government you dismiss as unlikely will be here.

Yes, that was the purpose of the second amendment, and it was a wise provision in it s day. That day ended with the establishment of a standing army at the start of the Twentieth Century. Anyone who thinks that the same purpose is being served today is delusional. Anyone who thinks that laws (and that is all the constitution is, laws) will remain viable throughout all of history is ignorant of what law and government is. The same people who made the constitution made it amendable. It's up to us, the people who are alive, to determine whether any law on the books is still viable. All of this, of course, is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which is how to reduce gun violence.

The Constitution is not a set of laws. They are rights laws are written to uphold those rights not to take them away. .Even though the 2nd Amendment was for protection against a tyrannical Government the framers also had self-defence in mind, as well as later writings by them, show this. The Constitution is amendable but you still can not take a fundamental right away or weaken it.

Sure you can. Prohibition? I'm not suggesting that taking away rights is a good idea, just that it can be done, if enough people agree it should be done. Then they can turn around and undo the damage they've done, once they realized that it wasn't a good idea after all. The second amendment is merely that, an amendment, and it can be repealed. Irrelevant, imo. This has nothing to do with gun control.

 

[westwall]

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

"By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it."







Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

Sure you can. Prohibition? I'm not suggesting that taking away ri






By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

"Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or paramilitary force of our government."

You do know that's precisely what the 2nd amendment is for right? Protection against a tyrannical Government. Wether you believe it is possible or not is irrelevant history has shown that it can happen time and time again.

There are already background checks in place in every state in the Union, In each of those states there are laws in place that should stop shootings from happening so why are still occurring? Criminals do not follow the law. The gun control that some want will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice the Constitutional rights and when that happens that tyrannical Government you dismiss as unlikely will be here.

Yes, that was the purpose of the second amendment, and it was a wise provision in it s day. That day ended with the establishment of a standing army at the start of the Twentieth Century. Anyone who thinks that the same purpose is being served today is delusional. Anyone who thinks that laws (and that is all the constitution is, laws) will remain viable throughout all of history is ignorant of what law and government is. The same people who made the constitution made it amendable. It's up to us, the people who are alive, to determine whether any law on the books is still viable. All of this, of course, is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which is how to reduce gun violence.

The Constitution is not a set of laws. They are rights laws are written to uphold those rights not to take them away. .Even though the 2nd Amendment was for protection against a tyrannical Government the framers also had self-defence in mind, as well as later writings by them, show this. The Constitution is amendable but you still can not take a fundamental right away or weaken it.

"Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or paramilitary force of our government."

You do know that's precisely what the 2nd amendment is for right? Protection against a tyrannical Government. Wether you believe it is possible or not is irrelevant history has shown that it can happen time and time again.

There are already background checks in place in every state in the Union, In each of those states there are laws in place that should stop shootings from happening so why are still occurring? Criminals do not follow the law. The gun control that some want will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice the Constitutional rights and when that happens that tyrannical Government you dismiss as unlikely will be here.

Yes, that was the purpose of the second amendment, and it was a wise provision in it s day. That day ended with the establishment of a standing army at the start of the Twentieth Century. Anyone who thinks that the same purpose is being served today is delusional. Anyone who thinks that laws (and that is all the constitution is, laws) will remain viable throughout all of history is ignorant of what law and government is. The same people who made the constitution made it amendable. It's up to us, the people who are alive, to determine whether any law on the books is still viable. All of this, of course, is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which is how to reduce gun violence.

The Constitution is not a set of laws. They are rights laws are written to uphold those rights not to take them away. .Even though the 2nd Amendment was for protection against a tyrannical Government the framers also had self-defence in mind, as well as later writings by them, show this. The Constitution is amendable but you still can not take a fundamental right away or weaken it.

Sure you can. Prohibition? I'm not suggesting that taking away rights is a good idea, just that it can be done, if enough people agree it should be done. Then they can turn around and undo the damage they've done, once they realized that it wasn't a good idea after all. The second amendment is merely that, an amendment, and it can be repealed. Irrelevant, imo. This has nothing to do with gun control.

Governments, once they have successfully taken Rights away, NEVER give them back. Ever. The only way that Rights are regained from government is through violent revolution. I suggest you read some history because you really have no idea of what you speak. And I mean none at all.

 

[Abatis]

The second amendment is merely that, an amendment, and it can be repealed.

What would happen if we, in our modern enlightenment, to reduce death and injury from falls, decided to repeal Newton's Law of universal gravitation?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The second amendment is merely that, an amendment, and it can be repealed.

What would happen if we, in our modern enlightenment, to reduce death and injury from falls, decided to repeal Newton's Law of universal gravitation?

I suggest you test the theory, repeal the law of gravity and then jump off a bridge.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The second amendment is merely that, an amendment, and it can be repealed.

What would happen if we, in our modern enlightenment, to reduce death and injury from falls, decided to repeal Newton's Law of universal gravitation?

I don't know who "we" refers to. If you somehow belong to a body which passed the law of gravitation, first of all let me say what an honor it is to finally meet you. Second, I guess anyone who passes a law can repeal it.

If you believe in social Darwinism, that's cool. It's as valid a theory as any. That's nature's way. Cull the weak. If a bullet has your name on it, swallow. Seems inefficient to me.

 

[Abatis]

I don't know who "we" refers to.

Well, they would be your "enough people" who will force their will on all. I'm guessing they would be the same people spoken of when Obama or any number of other gun control advocates say "we need to enact common sense gun laws".

If you somehow belong to a body which passed the law of gravitation, first of all let me say what an honor it is to finally meet you. Second, I guess anyone who passes a law can repeal it.

The rhetorical question was posed to make a point . . . That since original, fundamental rights are not granted by the words that recognize them, altering or even removing those words has no effect on the right. I was drawing an analogy with a physical force that of course does not depend upon the words that recognize it.

It would be my argument that the attempt to "repeal" the 2nd Amendment would be an act that would threaten the entire compact. Since most of the original 13 states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon adding a Bill of Rights (with two refusing to sign), what would happen if some of those states rescinded their original vote to ratify, enough to make the original ratification vote fail?

The whole argument you are making is ludicrous. To think that 33 states would agree to surrender the rights of their citizens, is typical leftie unicorn wrangling.

 

[Abatis]

I suggest you test the theory, repeal the law of gravity and then jump off a bridge.

Seriously, that's all you have?

You should have just stayed silent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 2nd Amendment does not need to be repealed! At least I've never argued that gun ownership should be outlawed, only that it be regulated.

The Right to speech is regulated, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is it okay for the Right of Speech to be regulated when the 1st. A. clearly states it cannot be abridged?

The issue is not one of semantics, the intent of both the 1st and 2nd has been determined to be about individual liberty (of course the 2nd has a modifier, that being "a well regulated Militia", which creates controversy).

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suggest you test the theory, repeal the law of gravity and then jump off a bridge.

Seriously, that's all you have?

You should have just stayed silent.

I too can be a smart ass, but this glib comment had a point. Theories need to be tested. Gun control is a theory that the control of guns will reduce gun violence.

At the extreme we know it can (NO GUNS, NO GUN VIOLENCE) but that is not the goal of any but the most extreme. Of course those who reject any effort to protect innocents killed by guns is extreme too.

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd Amendment does not need to be repealed! At least I've never argued that gun ownership should be outlawed, only that it be regulated.

The Right to speech is regulated, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is it okay for the Right of Speech to be regulated when the 1st. A. clearly states it cannot be abridged?

The issue is not one of semantics, the intent of both the 1st and 2nd has been determined to be about individual liberty (of course the 2nd has a modifier, that being "a well regulated Militia", which creates controversy).

The Right to speech is regulated, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

And the right to own guns is regulated...you cannot use a gun to commit murder. So again, you are wrong, the 2nd Amendment is highly regulated...you cannot use guns to commit rape, robbery, or murder, if you do you lose the right........

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is against the law to commit Murder, Rape, Robbery or any crime against a person using feet, fists, knives, clubs, saps, garden hoes, frying pans, nail guns or firearms.

 

[Abatis]

The Right to speech is regulated, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is it okay for the Right of Speech to be regulated when the 1st. A. clearly states it cannot be abridged?

Is libel, defamation, incitement to riot under any definition, an exercise of the right to free speech in an ordered society? Those laws that criminalize or allow civil action for those actions have as a singular foundation that such examples of speech are violations of society's peace and order.

Do any of those restrictions on speech bind the exercise of lawful, legitimate speech that has no harmful, threatening or dangerous intent?

The mala in se examples are more equatable to the RKBA / 2nd Amendment with crimes like brandishing a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter and murder . . . To say that those 1st Amendment examples are equatable with mala prohibita gun control laws that restrict the simple (and in any other situation lawful) possession and use of arms -- actions that are not in and of themselves harmful, threatening or dangerous-- is not legitimate and is actually duplicitous.

The issue is not one of semantics, the intent of both the 1st and 2nd has been determined to be about individual liberty (of course the 2nd has a modifier, that being "a well regulated Militia", which creates controversy).

Would any controversy or confusion remain in your mind if you were to accept the foundational principle that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment?

Seriously, explain why, and justify how you stand in such stark opposition to 140 years of SCOTUS telling you that the right to arms is a pre-existing right and thus does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

To finally accept that maxim avoids so much self-imposed confusion. It makes it impossible to be confused by what words "mean" or expending all that useless energy inventing conditions and qualifications on the right, from text the right in no manner depends upon.

See, if the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution, the right can not be said to be conditioned by, qualified upon or dependent upon any entity / structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia, well regulated or not).

Understand and accept that or you can continue stumbling in self-imposed blindness profoundly confused by things that have never been reality.

 

[Abatis]

It is against the law to commit Murder, Rape, Robbery or any crime against a person using feet, fists, knives, clubs, saps, garden hoes, frying pans, nail guns or firearms.

But if gun control advocates were to apply their reasoning to those instruments of crime they would be calling for cutting off feet and hands, banning all cutlery but plastic sporks, hoe registry with proof of a garden, removing assault grips from frying pans and banning nails capable of penetrating a human skull . . .

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is against the law to commit Murder, Rape, Robbery or any crime against a person using feet, fists, knives, clubs, saps, garden hoes, frying pans, nail guns or firearms.

But if gun control advocates were to apply their reasoning to those instruments of crime they would be calling for cutting off feet and hands, banning all cutlery but plastic sporks, hoe registry with proof of a garden, removing assault grips from frying pans and banning nails capable of penetrating a human skull . . .

Really, is hyperbole all you've got?

I don't speak for all gun control advocates, so this is my opinion. A gun changes the personality of the person holding it. Unlike any of the other items or body parts under discussion.

The primary reason for feet and hands is obvious; knives and hoes are tools not made for killing. Can they be used for that, of course. But why were guns developed and what is their primary purpose?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Right to speech is regulated, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is it okay for the Right of Speech to be regulated when the 1st. A. clearly states it cannot be abridged?

Is libel, defamation, incitement to riot under any definition, an exercise of the right to free speech in an ordered society? Those laws that criminalize or allow civil action for those actions have as a singular foundation that such examples of speech are violations of society's peace and order.

Do any of those restrictions on speech bind the exercise of lawful, legitimate speech that has no harmful, threatening or dangerous intent?

The mala in se examples are more equatable to the RKBA / 2nd Amendment with crimes like brandishing a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter and murder . . . To say that those 1st Amendment examples are equatable with mala prohibita gun control laws that restrict the simple (and in any other situation lawful) possession and use of arms -- actions that are not in and of themselves harmful, threatening or dangerous-- is not legitimate and is actually duplicitous.

The issue is not one of semantics, the intent of both the 1st and 2nd has been determined to be about individual liberty (of course the 2nd has a modifier, that being "a well regulated Militia", which creates controversy).

Would any controversy or confusion remain in your mind if you were to accept the foundational principle that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment?

Seriously, explain why, and justify how you stand in such stark opposition to 140 years of SCOTUS telling you that the right to arms is a pre-existing right and thus does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

To finally accept that maxim avoids so much self-imposed confusion. It makes it impossible to be confused by what words "mean" or expending all that useless energy inventing conditions and qualifications on the right, from text the right in no manner depends upon.

See, if the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution, the right can not be said to be conditioned by, qualified upon or dependent upon any entity / structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia, well regulated or not).

Understand and accept that or you can continue stumbling in self-imposed blindness profoundly confused by things that have never been reality.

How does one determine Mens rea before the act?

As early as 400 B.C.E Plato wrote of weapon control in The Republic.