I propose a new second amendment law

[Donald H]

That is categorically false. It is the Constitution which establishes the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of what is, and what isn't constitutional, which, per Marbury v Madison, grants the court the right of judicial review.

You know it's not the guns Rumpole.

You know it's the people who choose to use the guns to kill children. On day you will even want to know why!

For now just work on finding the reason why they choose the black military lookalike?

 

[2aguy]

Well, since males are less than 50 percent of the population and nearly 100 percent of all mass shooters are male, we should start by banning males from owning guns. They are killing people WAAAAAAAY out of proportion to their demographic!

Hmmm.....using your logic, then you want to ban black males from owning guns...right?

Young black males make up 7% of the population but commit over 50% of all murder...

So, you racist pig, you don't want blacks to be able to own guns....

 

[2aguy]

If you want to see the New Right finally come round to supporting gun control legislation, we need to arm every black and brown person in America.

And all the trannies.

You are an idiot.......the only one who actually disarmed blacks were democrats....who forbid their black slaves and freed blacks from owning guns.......

Normal Americans don't care who has a gun as long as they are law abiding people.....

Racists like you always want to keep blacks unarmed....

 

[2aguy]

LMAO, that is the origination of gun control. When Black Panthers starting open carrying in California old Ronald Reagan suddenly became all about gun control. Every black American should have a pistol on their side, and every Hispanic American should have a rifle on a sling over their back and a bandolier running across their chest. Every LGBTQ should be open carry.

You don't know what you are talking about, you doofus...

The first gun control laws came from the slave owners who kept blacks from owning guns....those slave owners became the democrat party....

Later, in New York, the democrat party once again pushed gun control because their gang member foot soldiers were getting shot by the people they were trying to muscle...

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

 

[Flash]

I propose a law (if there isn't one, already, state or federal): If an individual is perscribed one or more psychotropic drugs which,, and it is for more than 7 days, that individual forfeits their right to own firearms until he or she is safely taken off such drugs, and pass a probationary period of 6 months.

Now, I realize the drugs are (I would imagine) supposed to restore an individual to some form of normalcy, but I"m addressing the underlying reason the drug was perscribed and proposing the law as a precautionary measure aligned with public safety, the concern of which is paramount.

Agree or disagree?

Agree in principle, but stipulate the terms? If so, what do you suggest?

Also since I'm not an expert on the subject, I will be happy to listen to the issue of perhaps it depends on the drugs and what it was perscribed for, and adjust the law accordingly, I welcome feedback on that point.

In New York a veteran went to see his doctor about insomnia.

The doctor felt that under the filthy ass SAFE Act (touted as being "common sense" gun control) he had to report the visit to the goddamn government thugs. Shortly afterwards the jackbooted government shitheads came to the veteran's home and confiscated his firearms.

No thanks. We will pass on letting the government infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. They will always do the wrong thing. You can't trust the sonofabitches with your Liberty.

 

[2aguy]

In New York a veteran went to see his doctor about insomnia.

The doctor felt that under the filthy ass SAFE Act (touted as being "common sense" gun control) he had to report the visit to the goddamn government thugs. Shortly afterwards the jackbooted government shitheads came to the veteran's home and confiscated his firearms.

No thanks. We will pass on letting the government infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. They will always do the wrong thing. You can't trust the sonofabitches with your Liberty.

Yep......that is why they push for laws like Red Flag laws........

Meanwhile, the violent 10 time felon gets released on no cash bail....

 

[Flash]

If you want to see the New Right finally come round to supporting gun control legislation, we need to arm every black and brown person in America.

And all the trannies.

We will take our chance with the trannies and the queers. Negroes are always incompetent as hell and drunk or high on crack most the time so they will not be much of a threat in any conflict.

 

[toobfreak]

I propose a new second amendment law​

I propose that Rumpy not propose any more laws. You can give a psychotropic substance or even a psychotomimetic one to ten different people and get ten different reactions, depending on the individual and their constitutions.

You might as well claim no women be allowed to drive just because you found one BAD one.

 

[Donald H]

You don't know what you are talking about, you doofus...

The first gun control laws came from the slave owners who kept blacks from owning guns....those slave owners became the democrat party....

Your typically childish attempts to insult others and your racist talking points, always reveal more on America's mass shootings problem than you ever intended.

 

[2aguy]

Your typically childish attempts to insult others and your racist talking points, always reveal more on America's mass shootings problem than you ever intended.

The democrats are the racists.....leftists are racist by nature...

 

[Rumpole]

All that will do is to stop people from getting treatment. If some clown will lose his guns if he takes a pill, he won’t take the pill.

That is an interesting point. I'll have to study it more. thank you. You do realize that folks whose mental state poses a danger to society are subject to a (in CA, there's another federal law) a '5150', placing a subject involuntarily, but temporarily for a mental health assessment. If they are deemed a danger to themselves and others, they could be placed in a more permanent status in a state mental hospital, thus removing the danger the person poses to society. I believe a number of states have similar laws.
See:

Law section

The point is, if mom and dad know their son or daughter is required, medically, to take a psychotropic drug, and they know that individual is in possession of a firearm, and the person refuse medication, they could, with their signature, order him or her to be held under the 5150 law. As for other states, one must google it.

 

[Rumpole]

how doess that disprove what I said??
it just confirms it,,

Well, let's take a look at what you did say:

the constitution doesn't need interpreted,, its written in simple english and says clearly what it means,,,interpretation is whats caused all the problems,,,

Marbury v Madison grants the Supreme Court the right of 'Judicial Review".

What does that mean? It's a fancy word for 'interpretation', and thus, refuting your point.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well, let's take a look at what you did say:

the constitution doesn't need interpreted,, its written in simple english and says clearly what it means,,,interpretation is whats caused all the problems,,,

Marbury v Madison grants the Supreme Court the right of 'Judicial Review".

What does that mean? It's a fancy word for 'interpretation', and thus, refuting your point.

a judicial review is them reviewing something to make sure it abides the constitution,,,

I was hoping you would come back with proof of your claim the 2nd A no longer means the people and now means enlisted person under government control,,,

can you provide proof of that or not??

the answer is no you cant because its based on interpretation not the intent under which it was written,,

 

[Rumpole]

The problem is, if a law has unconstitutional elements, the court can decide to overturn the law in total, or in part. It depends on how vital the remainder of the law is.

Agreed.

Such as, a law against murder, where one part of it violates due process. If they overturn the entire law, while they wait until congress can write another law, murder would be legal.

No, every state has a 'murder is a crime' law, and those laws would remain in effect. If a law in a particular state is overturned, I cannot fathom the court letting even a temporary condition where in a given state, for even a few moments, they would allow a law against murder to completely repealed. That would be a most antisocial ruling if there ever were one. However, they might rule on due process, habeas corpus, and other aspects, but a complete repeal of a murder law? That doesn't even make sense.

So often, where there is separability within the statute, leave standing the legal parts, and strike from the law, the unconstitutional parts.

That clearly "writes law"

Well, not in the strictest legal interpretation of your comment. To be accurate, Scotus rulings have the force of law, until the court, itself, overrules it, but that is not the same thing as 'writing a law' (as Congress does) especially given that, if the ruling, though impactful of state laws, if it doesn't specifically strike down a given law in a given state, that state law remains in effect until challenged and ruled on by the courts, and/or Supreme Court on appeal. Case in point, Dobbs repealed Roe, but it didn't ban abortion in the states. All it did is allow states complete freedom to write their own laws on abortion.

 

[GMCGeneral]

It seems that the NRA folks, et al. won't be happy until everyone, in bars, churches, classrooms, sunday school, beaches, parades, halls of congress, parks, restaurants, bingo games and PTA meets adorn their bodies with AR-15s with two 200 round affixed to their mid regions. Now, some will see that as an exaggeration, but it's the gist of it that's my message i.e, the direction that the gun guys and gals seem to be heading.


As long as Republicans can filibuster in the Senate, and they control the house, no, nothing can be done. That might change in 2024, we shall see. No, it's not 'culture' it's public safety.

Ahh another gun grabber I see.

 

[Rumpole]

a judicial review is them reviewing something to make sure it abides the constitution,,,

Judicial review requires, by default, interpretation. If that weren't true, the SC wouldn't be needed.

I was hoping you would come back with proof of your claim the 2nd A no longer means the people and now means enlisted person under government control,,,

It does mean the people, I would never say otherwise, you misunderstood me.

The law that designated the "state militia" as described in the Constitution as the National Guard is the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act. This law established the National Guard as the organized militia of the United States, composed of state National Guard units that could be called up for federal service by the President in times of national emergency. The law also provided for standardized training and equipment for the National Guard, and established a dual state-federal role for the Guard.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

can you provide proof of that or not??

the answer is no you cant because its based on interpretation not the intent under which it was written,,

See above.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I propose a law (if there isn't one, already, state or federal): If an individual is perscribed one or more psychotropic drugs which,, and it is for more than 7 days, that individual forfeits their right to own firearms until he or she is safely taken off such drugs, and pass a probationary period of 6 months.

Now, I realize the drugs are (I would imagine) supposed to restore an individual to some form of normalcy, but I"m addressing the underlying reason the drug was perscribed and proposing the law as a precautionary measure aligned with public safety, the concern of which is paramount.

Agree or disagree?

Agree in principle, but stipulate the terms? If so, what do you suggest?

Also since I'm not an expert on the subject, I will be happy to listen to the issue of perhaps it depends on the drugs and what it was perscribed for, and adjust the law accordingly, I welcome feedback on that point.

...shall not be infringed

 

[Rumpole]

You know it's not the guns Rumpole.

You know it's the people who choose to use the guns to kill children. On day you will even want to know why!

For now just work on finding the reason why they choose the black military lookalike?

Are you responding to the rebuttal I gave to Progressive hunter, or the OP?

It looks like you are responding to the OP, and in that light, I'll reply

Now then, your point isn't clear. Can you elaborate with more specificity?

 

[progressive hunter]

Judicial review requires, by default, interpretation. If that weren't true, the SC wouldn't be needed.


It does mean the people, I would never say otherwise, you misunderstood me.

The law that designated the "state militia" as described in the Constitution as the National Guard is the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act. This law established the National Guard as the organized militia of the United States, composed of state National Guard units that could be called up for federal service by the President in times of national emergency. The law also provided for standardized training and equipment for the National Guard, and established a dual state-federal role for the Guard.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See above.

they might be interpreting the law being reviewed but the constitution doesnt need interpretation since it written in clear english with supporting intent with the writings of the founders,,,

for gods sake stop using wiki for a source on political issues,, they have proven to be nothing more than leftwing propaganda,,,

the 2nd A is clear its for the people to have military grade arms,,

 

[Rumpole]

I noticed you said it "NOW" it means the NG,,

when did the constitution get amended to say that??

No amendment required. See the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act.

thats the problem with interpretation,,

No, the problem with any written document, including the Constitution, someone has to be the arbiter of what it says.
That someone is the Supreme Court, whose power of 'Judicial Review", which, by default, equals 'interpretation', was established in Marbury v Madison.

the 2nd A clearly says what we need, why we need it and then how we get it,,

only a dishonest person claims it says different,,

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's function.