HYPOCRISY, Thy Name Is 'DEMOCRAT': Democrats Leave Capitol To March For Gun Control With Students

[Humorme]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

 

[Flopper]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

 

[2aguy]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

 

[2aguy]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

And? So what are you suggesting? That I don't carry, even though I have a concealed carry permit?

Maybe law-enforcement personally would be safer if they didn't carry weapons too? Do you even know why they carry a sidearm?

You're probably thinking "They carry a weapon because they are the police, and it's their job to protect me." Right?

Wrong. They carry weapons to protect themselves, not you or I, or anyone else.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Therefore it is up to each individual to take the responsibility of protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The laws of my state say that I am a trusted individual: I have been thoroughly trained, thoroughly vetted with a criminal background check, and have every right according to the Second Amendment, my state's concealed carry law, and my state's "Castle Doctrine" or "Deadly Force Law", to carry a use a firearm should I need to protect my own life, the lives of my family, or the lives of someone in mortal danger.

Whether you believe "It's only a matter of time" or not is irrelevant to me, as I will continue to carry a legal concealed handgun just as I have for the last eight years. And unless I break a law and have to forfeit my right to carry, there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do that's going to change that. So save your breath.

I don't question your right to carry a firearm, I only wonder if you are safer with one or without one, statistically speaking.

How much training is required to get a concealed carry permit? When I see a cop with a gun I know he has been thoroughly trained and knows how and when to use the weapon. Was your training comparable?

We have 21 years of actual experience that answers your question...will you face the facts on this?

And most cops fire their guns once a year....to qualify....and even then many departments use the honor system to verify this...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

And this is why we do not trust you.....banning guns is just what you assholes do...

 

[2aguy]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

And yet the states where the guns are coming from have less gun violence than in the democrat controlled, extreme gun controlled cities where the criminals sell them to other criminals....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[alang1216]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

Rights are not absolute. We have the 1st amendment but we also have libel and slander laws and a SCOTUS decision that you can't yell fire in a crowed theater.

 

[alang1216]

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

And? So what are you suggesting? That I don't carry, even though I have a concealed carry permit?

Maybe law-enforcement personally would be safer if they didn't carry weapons too? Do you even know why they carry a sidearm?

You're probably thinking "They carry a weapon because they are the police, and it's their job to protect me." Right?

Wrong. They carry weapons to protect themselves, not you or I, or anyone else.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Therefore it is up to each individual to take the responsibility of protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The laws of my state say that I am a trusted individual: I have been thoroughly trained, thoroughly vetted with a criminal background check, and have every right according to the Second Amendment, my state's concealed carry law, and my state's "Castle Doctrine" or "Deadly Force Law", to carry a use a firearm should I need to protect my own life, the lives of my family, or the lives of someone in mortal danger.

Whether you believe "It's only a matter of time" or not is irrelevant to me, as I will continue to carry a legal concealed handgun just as I have for the last eight years. And unless I break a law and have to forfeit my right to carry, there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do that's going to change that. So save your breath.

I don't question your right to carry a firearm, I only wonder if you are safer with one or without one, statistically speaking.

How much training is required to get a concealed carry permit? When I see a cop with a gun I know he has been thoroughly trained and knows how and when to use the weapon. Was your training comparable?

We have 21 years of actual experience that answers your question...will you face the facts on this?

And most cops fire their guns once a year....to qualify....and even then many departments use the honor system to verify this...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Causation or correlation?

Crime has gone down in most cities. Has the number of guns increased there too?

 

[2aguy]

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

And? So what are you suggesting? That I don't carry, even though I have a concealed carry permit?

Maybe law-enforcement personally would be safer if they didn't carry weapons too? Do you even know why they carry a sidearm?

You're probably thinking "They carry a weapon because they are the police, and it's their job to protect me." Right?

Wrong. They carry weapons to protect themselves, not you or I, or anyone else.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Therefore it is up to each individual to take the responsibility of protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The laws of my state say that I am a trusted individual: I have been thoroughly trained, thoroughly vetted with a criminal background check, and have every right according to the Second Amendment, my state's concealed carry law, and my state's "Castle Doctrine" or "Deadly Force Law", to carry a use a firearm should I need to protect my own life, the lives of my family, or the lives of someone in mortal danger.

Whether you believe "It's only a matter of time" or not is irrelevant to me, as I will continue to carry a legal concealed handgun just as I have for the last eight years. And unless I break a law and have to forfeit my right to carry, there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do that's going to change that. So save your breath.

I don't question your right to carry a firearm, I only wonder if you are safer with one or without one, statistically speaking.

How much training is required to get a concealed carry permit? When I see a cop with a gun I know he has been thoroughly trained and knows how and when to use the weapon. Was your training comparable?

We have 21 years of actual experience that answers your question...will you face the facts on this?

And most cops fire their guns once a year....to qualify....and even then many departments use the honor system to verify this...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Causation or correlation?

Crime has gone down in most cities. Has the number of guns increased there too?

The key point you missed is that as more Americans bought, own and carry guns, the crime rate did not go up....in fact, it went down.....the main argument of anti gunners is that more guns creates more gun crime...this is not true, as the actual crime rates and gun ownership rates show..

 

[Humorme]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration = confiscation. No thanks.

 

[alang1216]

Causation or correlation?

Crime has gone down in most cities. Has the number of guns increased there too?

The key point you missed is that as more Americans bought, own and carry guns, the crime rate did not go up....in fact, it went down.....the main argument of anti gunners is that more guns creates more gun crime...this is not true, as the actual crime rates and gun ownership rates show..

You may be right but you don't know how much crime would have gone down if the number of guns had not increased. Nobody does, the data is not there so claiming guns reduce crime is speculation not fact.

 

[alang1216]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration = confiscation. No thanks.

You're correct, gun registration does equal confiscation. Confiscation of those that should not have guns: criminals, unstable individuals, and those too young to use them responsibly.

 

[easyt65]

Maryland.

The Liberal media did a 'drive by' on the Maryland shooting story, not even slowing down to give the story the time it deserved...because it did nothing for the gun-grabbing agenda.

A shooter walks into a school, draws a weapon, shoots - wounds - 2 people, and in less than 1 minutes is shot down by an armed employee, preventing another potential 'Parkland, Florida' tragedy.


'Nuff said there.....

 

[Humorme]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration = confiscation. No thanks.

You're correct, gun registration does equal confiscation. Confiscation of those that should not have guns: criminals, unstable individuals, and those too young to use them responsibly.

My point is this: "criminals, unstable individuals, and those too young to use them responsibly" as you call them should not be roaming about unsupervised in our society.

If a person is convicted of a crime and they repay their debt to society and prove they are rehabilitated, they should return to society with all their Rights intact. Unstable people should be supervised. They might use a knife, a car or some kind of poison as a weapon. They belong in supervised custody if they cannot be trusted. Laws are in place that require gun purchasers be of a certain age. They must provide their National ID card as proof of residence and age.

 

[Humorme]

Maryland.

The Liberal media did a 'drive by' on the Maryland shooting story, not even slowing down to give the story the time it deserved...because it did nothing for the gun-grabbing agenda.

A shooter walks into a school, draws a weapon, shoots - wounds - 2 people, and in less than 1 minutes is shot down by an armed employee, preventing another potential 'Parkland, Florida' tragedy.


'Nuff said there.....

Imagine if the media gave that story HALF the coverage it gave to the anti - gun hysteria created in the aftermath of the Florida shooting. Then again, if the narrative makes Trump look like he endorsed a good idea... that cannot be put on the evening news. We have to keep up that idiotic notion that Trump is always a buffoon.

God bless that man, whose name I don't recall, that saved we don't know how many lives in Maryland.

 

[alang1216]

My point is this: "criminals, unstable individuals, and those too young to use them responsibly" as you call them should not be roaming about unsupervised in our society.

If a person is convicted of a crime and they repay their debt to society and prove they are rehabilitated, they should return to society with all their Rights intact. Unstable people should be supervised. They might use a knife, a car or some kind of poison as a weapon. They belong in supervised custody if they cannot be trusted. Laws are in place that require gun purchasers be of a certain age. They must provide their National ID card as proof of residence and age.

You may trust a criminal who has previously used a gun to commit a crime to have that gun back after serving his time but I'm not so trusting. As I tell my kids, if you abuse a right you lose that right.

Would you lock up anyone considered unstable or just have someone follow them around 24/7? If they legally own a gun what do you suggest and how would you know if they did?

If a man dies, can an ex-con or unstable person inherit their guns? How would we know?

I'm afraid your ideology has affected your common sense.

 

[Humorme]

My point is this: "criminals, unstable individuals, and those too young to use them responsibly" as you call them should not be roaming about unsupervised in our society.

If a person is convicted of a crime and they repay their debt to society and prove they are rehabilitated, they should return to society with all their Rights intact. Unstable people should be supervised. They might use a knife, a car or some kind of poison as a weapon. They belong in supervised custody if they cannot be trusted. Laws are in place that require gun purchasers be of a certain age. They must provide their National ID card as proof of residence and age.

You may trust a criminal who has previously used a gun to commit a crime to have that gun back after serving his time but I'm not so trusting. As I tell my kids, if you abuse a right you lose that right.

Would you lock up anyone considered unstable or just have someone follow them around 24/7? If they legally own a gun what do you suggest and how would you know if they did?

If a man dies, can an ex-con or unstable person inherit their guns? How would we know?

I'm afraid your ideology has affected your common sense.

Again, an ex-con nor an unstable person should be running amok in a free society. Nothing wrong with my ideology.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:

"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."

The Courts have had this to say regarding the Declaration of Independence:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

The state courts were the first to interpret our U.S. Constitution on this issue. How did they feel? Here is the earliest of those decisions:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Our "own Magna Charta" would be the Declaration of Independence. That document established the principle of unalienable Rights.

The state of Texas weighed in a little later, They ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Are you beginning to see that theme regarding unalienable and absolute / shall not be infringed where the Right is above the lawmaking power? Finally, let us see how the earliest United States Supreme Court decision saw this issue:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Notice that the Court did not say the Right doesn't exist. They admit it DOES, in fact, exist. So, by what authority can you deprive a freeman of his unalienable (aka natural, God given, inherent, absolute) Rights? In a de jure / lawful / constitutional government, you can't. You don't have that authority. You may have that power, but once a man has been released back into society, he should retain his Rights. His wife and daughter deserve the same protections your family do.

In your world, apparently there is no redemption. There are no second chances. Why would you even want second class citizens to be running amok in your society? The guy you call a "criminal" can't own a firearm; they have a record and get locked out of the job market; nobody wants to loan them money or rent to them. You're giving some people NO options other than a career in criminal activity.


It's going to take two posts to adequately answer you.

 

[Humorme]

My point is this: "criminals, unstable individuals, and those too young to use them responsibly" as you call them should not be roaming about unsupervised in our society.

If a person is convicted of a crime and they repay their debt to society and prove they are rehabilitated, they should return to society with all their Rights intact. Unstable people should be supervised. They might use a knife, a car or some kind of poison as a weapon. They belong in supervised custody if they cannot be trusted. Laws are in place that require gun purchasers be of a certain age. They must provide their National ID card as proof of residence and age.

You may trust a criminal who has previously used a gun to commit a crime to have that gun back after serving his time but I'm not so trusting. As I tell my kids, if you abuse a right you lose that right.

Would you lock up anyone considered unstable or just have someone follow them around 24/7? If they legally own a gun what do you suggest and how would you know if they did?

If a man dies, can an ex-con or unstable person inherit their guns? How would we know?

I'm afraid your ideology has affected your common sense.

Here is the second part of your response.

I have legislation that I drafted, but we did not pursue it this legislative session because our governor is gone after this year and it may take two or more years to get people on board. This post is long winded, but it will answer your questions once and for all.

Under my proposed legislation, any person who is sentenced must serve all of their time unless they prove they are rehabilitated. There is no "time off for good behavior." How is this done? Their first accomplishment is to get a GED. Their second accomplishment is to get some training in a transferable job skill on the outside. Then they have to successfully complete training in seminars on how to apply for a job and do the interview; they will learn how to plan and balance a family budget; they take a course in money and banking; there will be courses in hygiene, resolving conflicts, etc. They will be required to remove tattoos and body piercings. Don't criticize what you don't understand. The entire bill exceeds twenty pages.

Prison conditions won't be good for those who choose to avoid rehab. They will remain in their cells most of the time and not get to see tv or hear radio. There will be no cigarettes, drugs of any kind (unless administered by nurses); there will be no candy, soda, ice cream, coffee, tea, etc. They will get two hours a day out of their cells each day for exercise, showers, shaving, and eating one of two meals they will be served each day. Ninety nine percent will take the rehab.

Once out, that person would serve 90 days in which they will live in a half way house and get a job and save money - and at the end of that time, get a house / apartment and become self sufficient. Then, when their time is over, they are returned to society with all their Rights intact.

The bottom line is if someone has committed an act of violence so severe that they cannot be trusted, you don't put them back into society. Neither do you give someone a life sentence for having a scuffle with their brother over Susie Rottencrotch.

Now, let's talk about unstable people:

This waaaaay too complicated for a mere post, but I studied mass shooters now for thirty years. I've looked at the facts of every case during that time period. Aside from political jihadists, roughly 99 percent of the shooters were on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs.

The typical knee jerk reaction is to either ban SSRIs OR force doctors to keep those people in insane asylums. Neither is an option. Society has a problem because we over-medicate people. Over HALF of those on SSRIs do not meet the medical criteria for being on the drugs. So, we stop this cradle to the grave practice of giving out drugs for phony conditions like ADD / ADHD and then opioids, on then to SSRIs, then tossing people out where they get hooked on illegal drugs.

I've identified sixteen things all mass shooters have in common. If a person fits into any EIGHT of those categories, there is a 100 percent chance they will commit a serious act of violence in their lifetimes. And so, IF all departments of government who generate a report on a child 18 or under had that file end up with - and that agency's sole responsibility is to investigate the child first and then the agency making the report, they could fix the issue BEFORE a child commits an act of violence. Again, this is waaaaay too detailed for a board post - since it requires attention to detail (Due Process, investigating parents to see if that is where a problem lies, etc.) but you can identify and deal with people who are unstable... and you can rehabilitate the majority of them.

 

[Flopper]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

 

[Flopper]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=usmb-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

And yet the states where the guns are coming from have less gun violence than in the democrat controlled, extreme gun controlled cities where the criminals sell them to other criminals....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If states with strict gun control laws could keep guns from flowing into the state from states that have practically no regulations, they would certainly be more effective. The only way state gun control laws would have any major effect would be if all states followed suite and that's not going to happen.