Guns

[Open Bolt]

The Second Amendment is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’

All rights are limited. Otherwise there would only be a single right, and it would be a right to do anything.

The Constitution is absolute however. Anything that conflicts with the Constitution is unconstitutional.

And some additional measures are appropriate and warranted, such as a UBC; other measures are not, such as AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.

I concur.

 

[Open Bolt]

And private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict.

I think recent military history shows that guerrilla warfare stands a chance of winning.

I'm not a "pro-insurrectionist" however.


-------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody is talking about overthrowing the government. Stop repeating that lie...lol

Some conservatives do like argue for it. Not everyone does though.

It's not an issue that I like to argue, although I find claims that "civilians have no chance" to be contrary to recent military history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, it does deter crime. You'll notice that in areas where there is a high rate of gun ownership, there is a low crime rate.

Nobody is talking about overthrowing the government. Stop repeating that lie...lol

“Nobody on the Court in Heller endorsed the insurrectionist theory as a guide to the contemporary meaning or implementation of the Second Amendment.” ibid

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that endorses the wrongheaded notion of insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment doesn’t authorize private citizens to overthrow the Federal government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

“Nobody on the Court in Heller endorsed the insurrectionist theory as a guide to the contemporary meaning or implementation of the Second Amendment.” ibid

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that endorses the wrongheaded notion of insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment doesn’t authorize private citizens to overthrow the Federal government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

And no one is advocating such an excercise of the 2nd Amendment. Stop lying.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I think recent military history shows that guerrilla warfare stands a chance of winning.

I'm not a "pro-insurrectionist" however.


-------------------------------------------------------------

Some conservatives do like argue for it. Not everyone does though.

It's not an issue that I like to argue, although I find claims that "civilians have no chance" to be contrary to recent military history.

A small handful of crackpots talk about it, but isn't anywhere close to being mainstream.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

‘Congress may require background checks of the sort currently codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-926, because the Second Amendment permits laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. Congress may limit the number of firearms individuals may purchase in any given period, because the Second Amendment permits “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. Congress may ban private possession of machine guns, as it did in a law signed by President Reagan and currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), because the Second Amendment permits prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

It is bizarre how the Justices were able to find that the Second Amendment “permits” all sorts of exceptions that are nowhere stated nor implied in it nor anywhere else in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear, and absolute. It states a purpose, identifies a right as belonging to the people, and forbids that right from being infringed.

Where in the Second Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is there any statement that permits any part of government to infringe the right which the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And no one is advocating such an excercise of the 2nd Amendment. Stop lying.

You might as well ask a fly to stop eating shit as ask C_Clayton_Jones to stop lying.

 

[Blues Man]

You either believe in God or you don't, on your own.

Typical simplistic duality.

 

[Blues Man]

That would be the God who created this world, and us on it; who has given us the true moral standards, to the degree that we have been ready and willing to accept them.

Those who reject Him, who reject his morals, are subjects of Satan, and fall under his control.

I have seen no proof that gods exist.

Morals have evolved as societies have evolved just as religions have evolved as societies have evolved

 

[Blues Man]

Psalms 14:

1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.
5. There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6. Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.
7. Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

The bible isn;t proof of anything as it was written by men

 

[Blues Man]

Wrong.

Current firearm regulatory measures are being enforced – it’s a lie to claim otherwise.

And some additional measures are appropriate and warranted, such as a UBC; other measures are not, such as AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.

No, the problem is conservatives who refuse to address the issue of gun crime and violence, who refuse to explore potential solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

And when anyone tries to broach the subject of addressing gun crime and violence absent regulating firearms, conservatives shout down any good faith discussion and debate with lies and demagoguery about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

An example:

A conservative started a thread a while ago about those under 21 being ‘prohibited’ from owing guns; that those under 21 would be ‘left defenseless’ because they wouldn’t be able to possess firearms.

That’s a lie.

The law concerns solely those under 21 not being allowed to purchase firearms from an FFL – an 18- to 20-year-old is at liberty to purchase a firearm in a private face-to-face intrastate transaction with a fellow state resident or be gifted a firearm from another adult; those under 21 would not be left ‘disarmed’ and ‘defenseless.’

It’s this sort of dishonesty from the right that contributes to the problem.

"An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law."

May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same state? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law. A federal firearms licensee may not...

www.atf.gov

They are not being enforced.

If they were every single person caught illegally possessing a gun would face federal charges and mandatory 5 year sentences in federal prison.

Gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in any plea deal

In Delaware, 71% of gun charges are dropped

While 71 percent of charges are dropped, state prosecutors say convictions of some sort in firearms cases at 87 percent.

www.delawareonline.com

Exclusive: As violence rises, prosecutors bargain away gun charges

The most severe gun charge, possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, is dismissed in plea bargains 41 percent of the time, Star investigation finds.

www.indystar.com

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/

Arrests in Baltimore for illegal guns often lead to dropped charges or little jail time

As Baltimore police and prosecutors race to get gun-wielding criminals off the streets, many of the charges aren't sticking or defendants are only jailed for months — not years, as allowed under the law.

www.baltimoresun.com

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/felony-weapons-charges-dropped-by-the-state-can-feds-still-prosecute-49058

 

[Woodznutz]

Typical simplistic duality.

Is there some middle ground that I don't know about?

 

[Blues Man]

Is there some middle ground that I don't know about?

there is no middle because there is only one universe and it is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong , cruel nor kind.

It simply is

When you name the "good" you necessarily create the "bad"

 

[Woodznutz]

there is no middle because there is only one universe and it is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong , cruel nor kind.

It simply is

When you name the "good" you necessarily create the "bad"

In the human realm there is clearly good and evil.

 

[Blues Man]

In the human realm there is clearly good and evil.

Good and evil are human constructs.

Like I said you create the "bad" when you name the "good"

 

[Woodznutz]

Good and evil are human constructs.

Like I said you create the "bad" when you name the "good"

They are necessary constructs. Imagine life without them.

"I don't like black people, think I'll go kill a few this morning. Later I think I'll go bowling."

 

[Blues Man]

They are necessary constructs. Imagine life without them.

"I don't like black people, think I'll go kill a few this morning. Later I think I'll go bowling."

No they aren't.

How did that construct stop any Black person from getting shot in NY ?

It didn't.

So how is it necessary when it does nothing?

 

[Woodznutz]

No they aren't.

How did that construct stop any Black person from getting shot in NY ?

It didn't.

So how is it necessary when it does nothing?

. The current black crime wave is reflective of the nature you describe. Imagine it across all demographics. It would be a bloodbath. Thankfully most people have a strong sense of right and wrong.

 

[Blues Man]

. The current black crime wave is reflective of the nature you describe. Imagine it across all demographics. It would be a bloodbath. Thankfully most people have a strong sense of right and wrong.

There is crime across all demographics. Where have you been?

And how does that address mu point about the labels of "good" and "bad" being unnecessary because these label do nothing to stop anything from happening?

 

[hadit]

So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?

Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?

It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you.

Right to free speech = you can stand on a street corner and bellow whatever you want about a politician.
Not right to free speech = demanding that the city set up a sound system and stage and TV cameras broadcast what you have to say.

Right to bear arms = you can buy and own a firearm.
Not right to bear arms = demanding that the government provide you a firearm.

That's why there is no right to healthcare, because healthcare requires people to manufacture drugs and surgical implements, build hospitals, train doctors and nurses, etc.

A right is something you cannot be prevented from doing.