Hawaii proves gun control laws don't stop criminals....felon, with 10 convictions, living on an island...gets guns easily.

[Ben Thomson]

It is illegal to make some guns that were legal, suddenly illegal.
Its called ex post facto.

It likely was illegal to make it illegal for ex-felons to be armed in 1968.
The constitution does not allow for any federal firearm laws at all, and you can't treat anyone as a 2nd class citizen.

The purpose these gun control laws serve is illegal inherently.

As for the Constitution not allowing for federal firearm laws this is interesting reading..Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional? | Washington Monthly

 

[2aguy]

As for the Constitution not allowing for federal firearm laws this is interesting reading..Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional? | Washington Monthly

Notice....something you guys never want to you notice.....the Right as explained in Heller has very specific limits...having nothing to do with banning or confiscating arms....

Felons....dangerously mentally ill, some prohibitions on location, and making sure defective merchandise isn't protected...

Neither ruling allows for banning rifles or pistols..something you guys desperately want to do...

McDonald, while supposedly establishing a general “right to bear arms,” is almost entirely devoted to a more limited right—the right to keep a firearm at home for self-defense. Unfortunately, incorporation is an all-or-nothing business, so the justices found themselves propounding a sweeping individual right, which they then tried to walk back by ad hoc rationalizing: The right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”


The Court stated that its holding would not overturn state laws outlawing the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or that imposed conditions and qualifications on commercial arms sales. Clearly, McDonald did not settle the limits of the right to bear arms.

 

[2aguy]

As for the Constitution not allowing for federal firearm laws this is interesting reading..Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional? | Washington Monthly

Also....Caetano ruled that Dangerous and Unusual does not apply to common rifles and pistols....like the AR-15.......Scalia opinion in Friedman v highland park states directly that the AR-15 rifle, the gun you guys want to ban...is protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution and is not created by or dependent on the Constitution...you guys don't want to understand that.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Also....Caetano ruled that Dangerous and Unusual does not apply to common rifles and pistols....like the AR-15.......Scalia opinion in Friedman v highland park states directly that the AR-15 rifle, the gun you guys want to ban...is protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution and is not created by or dependent on the Constitution...you guys don't want to understand that.

A lot of things were not created or dependent on the Constitution..FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF..and the SCOTUS has given the government leeway in regulating armaments which is why you don't see people walking around with sub-machine guns or RPGs etc.

 

[2aguy]

A lot of things were not created or dependent on the Constitution..FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF..and the SCOTUS has given the government leeway in regulating armaments which is why you don't see people walking around with sub-machine guns or RPGs etc.

Heller, Caetano, Miller, Friedman, those are the cases that cover just about everything you need to know about guns.........you should read them.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. So simple and direct that only a lefty can ignore it.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Heller, Caetano, Miller, Friedman, those are the cases that cover just about everything you need to know about guns.........you should read them.

Did any of them allow for people to own 60 cal. machine guns and RPGs??..which was my point about SCOTUS allowing for some government oversight on weapons for civilian use.

 

[Ben Thomson]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. So simple and direct that only a lefty can ignore it.

You left out the first part..A well regulated Militia, being necessary

 

[2aguy]

Did any of them allow for people to own 60 cal. machine guns and RPGs??..which was my point about SCOTUS allowing for some government oversight on weapons for civilian use.

An RPG is not a rifle or pistol you nitwit.......and the 60 calibur machine gun is not an individual weapon, it is a crew served gun, you doofus....

Rifles and pistols.....very easy.

 

[Ben Thomson]

An RPG is not a rifle or pistol you nitwit.......and the 60 calibur machine gun is not an individual weapon, it is a crew served gun, you doofus....

Rifles and pistols.....very easy.

They are weapons which you people would scramble like hell to get if the SCOTUS ruled the government had no right to ban them..who you kidding.

 

[AMart]

Anti rape laws don't prevent rape. Anti theft laws don't prevent theft.

Sure they do. Threat of punishment is a good deterrent. And if locked up the damage to others is limited. Also those crimes violate others. Owning a gun doesn't violate others.

 

[2aguy]

You left out the first part..A well regulated Militia, being necessary

Nope.....the prefatory clause has no bearing on the operative clause....try reading Heller...

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
----
1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.”

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[Coyote]

The anti-gun extremists want gun control to stop criminals from getting guns. Gun control doesn't stop criminals....

Gun control simply adds layers of red tape and increases the legal peril for normal, law abiding gun owners who get scooped up for non-gun crime related paperwork infractions....paperwork infractions created to destroy their lives.

Meanwhile, the criminals get all the illegal guns they want.

The perfect example....Hawaii......an island....with every single gun control law outside of simply banning and confiscating guns....

And this guy ....

You see, Hawaii has pretty much every measure a gun control advocate could reasonably want. It’s also an island, which means no one comes in from another state without having to pass through some kind of security that generally isn’t going to allow guns to come through. They’re as isolated as you can get.

And yet, this happens:

Prosecutors charged Loran Gross of Mountain View with 22 offenses after a massive bust at his home last week Friday.

Detectives found over 27 pounds of dried marijuana, more than 230 live marijuana plants, 14 rifles, and more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition in his possession.

Police also found a semi-automatic hand gun, along with drug paraphernalia

Now, Gross has 10 prior felony convictions, meaning there’s no way he purchased those 14 rifles and the one semi-automatic handgun lawfully. He just couldn’t.

So, with all of Hawaii’s advantages, just how did he manage to get his grubbing little paws on them?

After all, we’re told that gun control works and the only reason places like New York or Chicago are having issues now isn’t because gun control fails, it’s because of all those other states. People just drive the guns into the Big Apple or the Windy City and sell them, thus negating all the good gun control supposedly does.

Yet Hawaii doesn’t have that going on. You simply can’t blame Indiana for criminals owning guns in Honolulu. As previously noted, you can’t get there without going through some kind of security, either via ship or plane. Ain’t no one driving there. If they are, I’m interested to know how.

Hawaiian Felon Proves Just How Useless Gun Control Is

bearingarms.com

You would be shocked to find that anti- murder laws don’t stop murder either.

 

[2aguy]

You would be shocked to find that anti- murder laws don’t stop murder either.

You are the idiots who think they do...since you also believe that gun control stops criminals.

What actually stops criminals? Keeping violent criminals in jail and prison........except the democrat party keeps letting known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of both jail and prison, over and over again.

 

[BULLDOG]

Wrong.
Anti rape laws most definitely do greatly reduce rape.
Anti theft laws most definitely do greatly reduce theft.
But since armed criminals deliberately intend to violate much stricter laws against murder or armed robbery, then gun control laws can not possibly have any effect in reducing murder or armed robbery.

In fact, gun control laws increase murder and armed robberies because they make armed resistance to crime less likely.

Yes, and reasonable gun laws reduce gun crime. You can't have it both ways. If 100% compliance is required for one, it should be required for all.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Nope.....the prefatory clause has no bearing on the operative clause....try reading Heller...

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
----
1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.”

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

So Heller told us.. This is what the Founders really meant even though they didn't phrase it that way...got it. Imagine the Founders being raised from the dead and having lived in today's America for six months. Wonder what they would say if asked..would you guys like another stab at wording the 2nd??

 

[BULLDOG]

No, he is not claiming to be able to read minds, but that the civil war over gun control is assured.
Gun control is totally contradictory to the basis of a democratic republic.
The founders did not trust or want mercenary police or military.
And they likely were right.
An armed population likely is essential to any democratic republic.
The police and military already are out of control, lying to us, and committing wholesale murder of innocents.
We see this in War on Drugs shootings, no-knock warrants, lies about Iraqi WMD, etc.
We likely already are living in a total authoritarian dictatorship.

Of course, you are full of shit anyway, but what I said had nothing to do with your diatribe. I was referring to his supposedly magical ability to fortel what a strainger might do in a hypothetical future situation.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, and reasonable gun laws reduce gun crime. You can't have it both ways. If 100% compliance is required for one, it should be required for all.

Wrong....we have 20,000 gun laws at the local, state and federal level......the problem isn't that we don't have enough gun laws...the problem, that you morons don't want to address, is the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders, the individuals doing 95% of all the shooting in our cities.........

 

[2aguy]

So Heller told us.. This is what the Founders really meant even though they didn't phrase it that way...got it. Imagine the Founders being raised from the dead and having lived in today's America for six months. Wonder what they would say if asked..would you guys like another stab at wording the 2nd??

They would wonder why we didn't have any guns on Jan. 6...............and if they had another stab at the 2nd Amendment, they would have mandated that all homes have rifles and pistols...and that the federal government not have any.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, and reasonable gun laws reduce gun crime. You can't have it both ways. If 100% compliance is required for one, it should be required for all.

Why do the democrats keep releasing violent gun offenders? You won't address this, since it is the actual problem that we have....we do not have a problem with the legal gun owners in this country..