Gun Rights

[Flash]

Any gun control an is a direct violation of our Constitutional right and is illegal.

No law maker has the authority to take that right away. No judge has the authority to over rule the Bill of Rights. When they do they are acting illegally. We let them do it to us and that is wrong.

If the Judaical Branch would apply the same strict scrutiny to Second Amendment rights as they do to other Constitutional rights then there would be very few, if any, gun control laws in this country as our Founding Fathers envisioned.

 

[Pilot1]

Stop simplifying the issue with irrelevant asides and start thinking how those who use arms ‘illegally’ so easily get their hands on them. I know I’m wasting my time trying to get anything like common sense into an American gun lobbyist’s head so I’m outa here.

It is perfectly relevant. Criminals will always get guns illegally or other means to commit violent crime. The vast majority of guns are owned by law abiding citizens and are a danger to NO ONE. Pockets of crime exists in inner cities mostly. Address those violent criminals and the problem is reduced. Taking away guns from the law abiding does NOTHING except make law abiding citizens VICTIMS, and more at risk from criminals and an over zealous government.

 

[Pilot1]

Any gun control an is a direct violation of our Constitutional right and is illegal.

No law maker has the authority to take that right away. No judge has the authority to over rule the Bill of Rights. When they do they are acting illegally. We let them do it to us and that is wrong.

If the Judaical Branch would apply the same strict scrutiny to Second Amendment rights as they do to other Constitutional rights then there would be very few, if any, gun control laws in this country as our Founding Fathers envisioned.

I don't seeing States being allowed to pass laws restricting the First Amendment, and Free Speech. Why are they allowed to pass more gun control laws that restrict the Second Amendment, and LEGAL gun ownership?

 

[Flash]

Any gun control an is a direct violation of our Constitutional right and is illegal.

No law maker has the authority to take that right away. No judge has the authority to over rule the Bill of Rights. When they do they are acting illegally. We let them do it to us and that is wrong.

If the Judaical Branch would apply the same strict scrutiny to Second Amendment rights as they do to other Constitutional rights then there would be very few, if any, gun control laws in this country as our Founding Fathers envisioned.

I don't seeing States being allowed to pass laws restricting the First Amendment, and Free Speech. Why are they allowed to pass more gun control laws that restrict the Second Amendment, and LEGAL gun ownership?

The answer is simple. Because the courts won't apply the same strict scrutiny standards to the Second Amendment as they do to all the others.

It is like the courts and the law makers think they can get away with ignoring that right. It is as if they think the Founding Fathers weren't serious about "shall not be infringed".

If the courts can ignore the Bill of Rights then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

 

[regent]

The rights in the first amendment are not absolute Congress can change them.

 

[ding]

The rights in the first amendment are not absolute Congress can change them.

There’s a little more to it than that. States have to ratify it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

/----/ Good news:
LIer fights constitutional battle over nunchucks
LIer fights - and wins - 16-year constitutional battle over nunchucks
Nearly 20 years ago, James Maloney was charged with possessing nunchucks in his Port Washington home. The arrest led him to wage a legal battle that he won earlier this month.
By Rachel Uda[email protected] @Rachel_UdaUpdated December 27, 2018 8:45 PM
PRINT SHARE
Using needle and thread, James Maloney repaired the string that bound his nunchucks together.

Maloney had untethered the martial arts weapon nearly 20 years ago after he was charged with possessing nunchucks in his Port Washington home. His "outrage" over the charge in 2000 pushed him into a yearslong legal battle to strike down the state’s ban on the weapon, which consists of two sticks joined by a cord or chain.

Earlier this month, a court ruled in Maloney’s favor, deeming the ban unconstitutional.

“It was more a sense of relief when I saw the decision,” said Maloney, 60, a lawyer and a professor at SUNY Maritime College, who represented himself through most of the litigation.


Maloney said his interest in nunchucks began around the time that New York State outlawed the weapon. In the 1970s, kung fu movies swelled in popularity and in 1973, millions of Americans watched Bruce Lee twirl the weapon in “Enter the Dragon.”

 

[Marion Morrison]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

 

[miketx]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

Guns are not toys, dumbass. Guns are tools, deadly tools.

 

[miketx]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

The part where you refer to guns as toys liar.

 

[miketx]

The rights in the first amendment are not absolute Congress can change them.

Always half truths and lies form the left.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

The part where you refer to guns as toys liar.

So, you don't like your Toys to be referred to as Toys. My bad.

 

[miketx]

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

The part where you refer to guns as toys liar.

So, you don't like your Toys to be referred to as Toys. My bad.

I don't care what you lying scum call them, you just go on proving to anyone looking what an idiot troll you are.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The main reason we have so much violent crime is because liberals keep letting them go.

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

Remember first of all that unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution includes a provision that states that any part of it, including the Second Amendment, can be changed, replaced, or outright eliminated with a large enough majority. That in itself says that the Government very well *does* have the ability to remove your right to bear arms, and therefore it isn't as immutable as the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The next thing to remember beyond that is that while the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is not the only law of the land. Subsequent rulings have repeatedly shown that Constitutional rights are not absolute; inciting a riot is not covered by free speech, human sacrifice is not covered by free religion, and the Firearms Act of 1934 is not prohibited because we have a right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller opinion that (paraphrasing) that decision does not mean that any person can carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose. With enough support, Congress could pass a firearms law that would, for example, put all semi-automatic weapons behind the Class III wall, or ban bump stocks or oversized magazines outright, or enact registration laws so draconian and complicated that they would make your blood boil. The precedent of limiting gun availability has been long set; all we do now is to decide where on the sliding scale we want to move the lever, as it were.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

Guns are not toys, dumbass. Guns are tools, deadly tools.

Some people have poisonous snakes as pets. In their mind, they are pets. At least they are honest about it. My Drill Press is a tool. My sockets are tools. Some have tools that they think of as toys the way they collect them. Gun Crazies collect guns and defend them much like a Cat Lover defends their cats. Yes, the Other White Meat will get them riled quickly. Much like your gun crazies when it's pointed out that your guns are your toys. My old Muscle and Pony Cars were toys but I was honest about it. Try being honest for a change.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Need to bring speedy hanging for violent offenses back.

Yeah, fuck you. Any restriction on firearms American citizens own is too much. We should be allowed full-auto, mortars, and Howitzers if we want. Actually we are, but you have to pay..grr! The 2nd says "shall not be infringed"

Well, all those licences and fees and tax stamps are infringing.

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

The part where you refer to guns as toys liar.

So, you don't like your Toys to be referred to as Toys. My bad.

Go play with a loaded one, faggot.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

The part where you refer to guns as toys liar.

So, you don't like your Toys to be referred to as Toys. My bad.

I don't care what you lying scum call them, you just go on proving to anyone looking what an idiot troll you are.

Wow, you sure are touchy about your toys being called toys. No wonder we need some sort of Gun Regulations. I draw the line at Common Sense Gun Regs that almost everyone can live with. The fact that your fanatics can't, that means we are doing it right. If it doesn't piss off both fringe groups, we ain't doing it right.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Spoken like a true gun crazy. By Federal Standards, you are correct. You can have most of the neat toys under the FFL Firearms Laws. But under the State Laws, under the 10th and 14th, the State has the right to limit you on everything except a handgun with reasonable mags in your home. You want to bitch and moan, take it up with the state you are living in. Hell, run for office, get it changed. You'll find it's a lot easier to get things changed at a local level than a Federal Level. Or do you just want to cry like a baby and pout.

Guns are not toys ya lying scum bag.

And what part did I lie about? You ran your mouth. Now, tell me what part I lied about. Now, when are YOU going to get civically involved to get things changed or are you just going to whine and bitch like a little baby.

The part where you refer to guns as toys liar.

So, you don't like your Toys to be referred to as Toys. My bad.

Go play with a loaded one, faggot.

Wow, what a comeback. So you know all about me then. Tell me, what is YOUR sexual preferences since you seem to know all about mine. And will you hurry up and get on with your little Revolution so we can get rid of your kind and move on with living a full and meaningful life.