Gun owner paranoia---

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've seen this argument before. It doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work, because you disagree with it? The Supreme Court ruled on it. I would think with their extensive knowledge of our founders and Constitution, they would know.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

 

[Blues Man]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

I understand that this reality is bothersome to dull-witted reactionaries. Consider this, the only constant in the universe is change. Adapt or perish, my fried.

If you doubt these truths, come out to California and wonder around with your cap gun over your shoulder. After you've been arrested and charged, you can test your "shall not be infringed theory" in court.

Good luck.

It's actually quite difficult to make changes to the Constitution and that is by design.

Even Judges that have to interpret the Constitution today have to work within pretty narrow guidelines.

 

[2aguy]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

Crazy cons are incapable of reading simple English.

What part of “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited” do you not understand?

Don’t like it or agree with it?

Dig up your fellow conservative Scalia and argue with him about it.

No, we can read and understand it...we just know how assholes like you read it....

You essentially believe as long as the 2nd Amendment is still written on paper, it allows you to ban every single gun that you want, every piece of equipment that you want, and then claim that you haven't violated the 2nd Amendment....since we still have it...see...it is right there on that piece of paper.....

 

[2aguy]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

I understand that this reality is bothersome to dull-witted reactionaries. Consider this, the only constant in the universe is change. Adapt or perish, my fried.

If you doubt these truths, come out to California and wonder around with your cap gun over your shoulder. After you've been arrested and charged, you can test your "shall not be infringed theory" in court.

Good luck.

It's actually quite difficult to make changes to the Constitution and that is by design.

Even Judges that have to interpret the Constitution today have to work within pretty narrow guidelines.

Not true.....the left wing judges on the 2nd, 4th, 9th and other circuits are simply ignoring the 2nd Amendment rulings from the Supreme Court....and making up what they want......relying on the divided Supreme Court to allow their violations of their rulings to be allowed to stand.

 

[danielpalos]

And you again ignored what Scalia actually said.......

To the contrary, I quoted Scalia's applicable words verbatim that contradict various fallacies in denial of government's legitimate role in regulating firearms, as well as citing the applicable wording from the pertinent case:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."​

​

Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.​

​

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

​

​

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry​

any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ​

Obviously, despite the hysteria of some strident advocates for unbridled permissiveness, firearms are not exempt from government regulation - as further affirmed by all the extant statutes concerning them.

Federal Firearms Laws

www.justice.gov

​

Again, anyone wetting their cribs over the prospect of Big Blue Meanies snatching away their precious shooties are victims of paranoia-induced hysteria:

There is no legislative initiative in any of the fifty United States
or at the national level to repeal the Second Amendment.
​

Can government regulate firearms? Legal precedent, multiple such regulations being on the books, and Constitutional authorities concur in answering "yes." It would be absurdly presumptuous of me to contradict that reality.

You really are dumb..........Mexico also has a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution.......they have only one gun store, located on a military base, controlled by the army.....they have a tiny selection of legal guns for those who get permission to buy one...

it doesn't take ending the 2nd Amendment to ban and confiscate guns........ ending the lawful commerce in arms act is the first big step after putting anti-gun judges on the courts.........

Gun lovers are to blame. Well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Insist your State legislators do their job!

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

So, why were gays infringed from the armed forces when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union may not be Infringed, literally.

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen this argument before. It doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work, because you disagree with it? The Supreme Court ruled on it. I would think with their extensive knowledge of our founders and Constitution, they would know.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I've seen this argument before. It doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work, because you disagree with it? The Supreme Court ruled on it. I would think with their extensive knowledge of our founders and Constitution, they would know.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Thanks for the quotes Ray, but I remain unmoved at the suggestion that the 2ndA was written with the expectation that so simple a sentence should be interpreted with the arbitrary selection of "potentially" relevant attitudes of the times. How would you rate my chances of finding contradicting quotes?

A to what I bolded, I suspect that there was context. Standing alone, such an absolute is far too illogical from Jefferson.

I've already granted Scalia's judgement, and that it is current law. I disagree with it.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

I understand that this reality is bothersome to dull-witted reactionaries. Consider this, the only constant in the universe is change. Adapt or perish, my fried.

If you doubt these truths, come out to California and wonder around with your cap gun over your shoulder. After you've been arrested and charged, you can test your "shall not be infringed theory" in court.

Good luck.

It's actually quite difficult to make changes to the Constitution and that is by design.

Even Judges that have to interpret the Constitution today have to work within pretty narrow guidelines.

Yes, they have to be clever about their games.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I've seen this argument before. It doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work, because you disagree with it? The Supreme Court ruled on it. I would think with their extensive knowledge of our founders and Constitution, they would know.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Well done.

You have just provided an example of what I was too lazy but to suggest with a generalization (in what I wrote to Ray).

There is nothing cryptic in the language of the 2ndA. Scalia, and others, have wondered way out of bounds in twisting the intent of the 2ndA.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thanks for the quotes Ray, but I remain unmoved at the suggestion that the 2ndA was written with the expectation that so simple a sentence should be interpreted with the arbitrary selection of "potentially" relevant attitudes of the times. How would you rate my chances of finding contradicting quotes?

A to what I bolded, I suspect that there was context. Standing alone, such an absolute is far too illogical from Jefferson.

I've already granted Scalia's judgement, and that it is current law. I disagree with it.

Disagree with it all you like, that's your right. The point I'm making is that our founders did not intend for the right to be exclusive to militias. You have to imagine the environment at the time. Many lived out in the wilderness where hunting food was the only way for survival. Like today, we had good guys and bad guys where the good guys had to protect themselves. Frontiersmen didn't have cell phones to call the police when attacked by an Indian tribe unhappy with the occupation of their land.

Do you really believe that our founders would have left the citizens helpless against criminals, Indians and animals?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Thanks for the quotes Ray, but I remain unmoved at the suggestion that the 2ndA was written with the expectation that so simple a sentence should be interpreted with the arbitrary selection of "potentially" relevant attitudes of the times. How would you rate my chances of finding contradicting quotes?

A to what I bolded, I suspect that there was context. Standing alone, such an absolute is far too illogical from Jefferson.

I've already granted Scalia's judgement, and that it is current law. I disagree with it.

Disagree with it all you like, that's your right. The point I'm making is that our founders did not intend for the right to be exclusive to militias. You have to imagine the environment at the time. Many lived out in the wilderness where hunting food was the only way for survival. Like today, we had good guys and bad guys where the good guys had to protect themselves. Frontiersmen didn't have cell phones to call the police when attacked by an Indian tribe unhappy with the occupation of their land.

Do you really believe that our founders would have left the citizens helpless against criminals, Indians and animals?

Gotta run, but as to your last sentence: No, I don't believe that; neither do I believe that an unbridged guarantee from here to eternity was or is necessary.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gotta run, but as to your last sentence: No, I don't believe that; neither do I believe that an unbridged guarantee from here to eternity was or is necessary.

Neither did they, that's why they gave us an amendment process.

 

[Utilitarian]

It doesn't take very long for prices to change. In the commodities market, there is a group of fund managers. Fund management is a controlled account. You don't get to choose how to invest. Fund managers get small time investors, pool their money, and put that money on various commodities. When these tens of millions of dollars go one way, the price changes immediately.

Let's say your gas station is selling gas for $2.10. They bought the gasoline at $1.95 a gallon. When the prices go up to $2.50, they still have that gasoline in the ground they bought for $1.90. It doesn't matter. When the price of gasoline changes, they change the prices that day. It's all based on what the commodities market is doing at the moment.

It also works the other way around. If the gasoline they have in the ground cost them $2.40 per gallon, and the price drops to $2.20 a gallon, they change their price that day even though it's technically a loss.

Okay, so how do they make money sometimes and lose other times? It's an investment strategy known as hedging. It's a bit complicated to explain, but in short, they arrange their investments so they actually bet against themselves. In doing so, they are able to make the same profit whether the price for gasoline is $1.90, or if the price goes up to $3.00. They make the same 15 cents per gallon profit no matter what.

Good points. Hedging overall seems to be a bit of a rigged game though when considering what the Gamestop fiasco revealed.

 

[Utilitarian]

No....Conservatives are not fine with psychological background checks.....where do you get that?

Psychological background checks will be used to deny ownership to normal people.....sorry, a non-starter.

You must know different conservatives than I do then. Ray brought up some valid concerns with these checks, but if the criteria are limited to extreme illnesses, then why would a check be bad?

 

[Utilitarian]

Sorry.......you do not understand anti-gun extremists........any mandatory psychological test for gun ownership will be used to deny normal people the Right to own and carry guns.......

We already have plenty of laws that deal with mentally dangerous people and guns.....we don't need a psych test...

This wouldn't be a test though. I'm referring to a check on mental health records. It would be similar to the check on criminal records.

 

[Utilitarian]

There isn't the "possibility," it is a sure thing.....psychiatrists and social workers will exploit their position to keep people from owning and carrying guns.

While it is true that most people in those professions are on the left, I'm not referring to a system where either one would test each potential buyer. I'm just referring to a check on people's records. So, if someone doesn't ever see a social worker or psychiatrist for an extreme condition, he/she wouldn't be barred from buying a gun.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Well, there's a lot of missing pieces to your story, but I'll ask what attracted you to East LA.

Traveling from WA to Tustin to visit two friends. Got off on the wrong exit in LA. I was supposed to get off 4th ave in Tustin, with multiple lanes and signs I saw both Tustin and 4th. so got off. Off at Safeway 4th and Soto, not a friendly place!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

While it is true that most people in those professions are on the left, I'm not referring to a system where either one would test each potential buyer. I'm just referring to a check on people's records. So, if someone doesn't ever see a social worker or psychiatrist for an extreme condition, he/she wouldn't be barred from buying a gun.

But mandatory mental examinations is what the Democrats are proposing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You must know different conservatives than I do then. Ray brought up some valid concerns with these checks, but if the criteria are limited to extreme illnesses, then why would a check be bad?

Because it would only be a starting point. If they could get away with that, they will keep narrowing the parameters of what is considered mental illness. It will eventually evolve into seeing a shrink for depression of your divorce will lead you into not being allowed to own a firearm for the rest of your life.