If you don't want guns don't buy them?

[Wry Catcher]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

The problem is no one gets to decide who gets guns and who doesn't. How does one determine who will use a gun to kill another human being until they do?

Background checks would help, licensing too and gun registration. Since the gun advocates can't or won't police themselves, the time will come when the will rue their stubborn resistance to sensible gun control.

 

[Contumacious]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

And the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right, where prohibiting felons and the mentally ill, for example, from coming into possession of firearms, as well as placing "conditions and qualifications" concerning the sale of firearms, such as background checks, is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

There is no 'right' to possess any weapon or firearm so desired.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and the prohibition of specific types of firearms – such as AR platform rifles – are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

There may be those who don't like the case law, there may be those who disagree with the case law, but as a fact of Constitutional law the above and other restrictions comport with the Second Amendment right.

NO, IT DOESN'T.

SCOTUS, A BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, DOES.

THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO THEM . SO THEY CAN NOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

And the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right, where prohibiting felons and the mentally ill, for example, from coming into possession of firearms, as well as placing "conditions and qualifications" concerning the sale of firearms, such as background checks, is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

There is no 'right' to possess any weapon or firearm so desired.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and the prohibition of specific types of firearms – such as AR platform rifles – are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

There may be those who don't like the case law, there may be those who disagree with the case law, but as a fact of Constitutional law the above and other restrictions comport with the Second Amendment right.

She has argued in this thread that one should NOT have a day in court to be denied firearms rights. I notice you ignored that.

AGAIN, SHE WORKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF IN-JUSTICE.

THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE THE US CONSTITUTION.


.

 

[hunarcy]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

Shouldn't those people, the "nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles" and so forth be separated from by being in prison or a hospital? That would be more effective than focusing on firearms.

 

[OKTexas]

What we don't understand is why all the methods you propose to achieve that actually only end up making it harder for law abiding people to get, possess and use firearms.

And except for shock value, I don;t know why you bring up pedo's, there isn't a rash of gun toting kid touchers running around, that we know of.

honestly? I don't care if it's "harder" for you. there is nothing saying that it shouldn't be a bit "harder"

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

The second was intended to protect the people and their States form federal abuses, the people are the militias referred to in the first portion of the 2nd, and the second gives them them right to keep their States FREE, not to be unconstitutionally bowed to the will of the feds. You should note that the federal and State powers are never conflated in the Constitution, their powers are distinctly separated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Background checks and magazine restrictions are Constitutional:
https://www.coloradoattorneygeneral...4/06/26/062614_krieger_opinion_outfitters.pdf

 

[Contumacious]

Background checks and magazine restrictions are Constitutional..........
https://www.coloradoattorneygeneral...4/06/26/062614_krieger_opinion_outfitters.pdf

........In Cuba, the former USSR, Israhell (special law for Palestinians)


.

 

[OKTexas]

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I suspect it takes a lot given the extent of your failure as a human being.

And yet here you are boldly DEMANDING that other peoples rights be denied with out due process. And insisting that YOUR supposed rights do IN FACT outweigh ours.

you don't have the right to not be subject to regulation.

but you want objective criteria... ok.. .what do you say to anyone on antipsychotic or antidepressant meds not being allowed guns.

you like that one?

Not unless they are proved to be a threat to themselves or others, in a court of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

The problem is no one gets to decide who gets guns and who doesn't. How does one determine who will use a gun to kill another human being until they do?

Background checks would help, licensing too and gun registration. Since the gun advocates can't or won't police themselves, the time will come when the will rue their stubborn resistance to sensible gun control.

The Federal courts – and in time the Supreme Court – will ultimately determine what firearm regulatory measures pass Constitutional muster, and what measures do not.

As is the case with other conflicts and controversies of the day, much of this will be resolved through the legal process, not the political.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is currently evolving, and will continue to evolve for decades to come.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Background checks and magazine restrictions are Constitutional..........
https://www.coloradoattorneygeneral...4/06/26/062614_krieger_opinion_outfitters.pdf

........In Cuba, the former USSR, Israhell (special law for Palestinians)


.

And this is an example of the ignorance, stupidity, and ridiculous extremism that serves only to undermine the Second Amendment right.

 

[OKTexas]

What I want to know is how does banning me from getting a CCW, and making me pay $1000 and take 3 months to get a gun permit just for home ownership prevent someone else from using a gun illegally?

stop using the word "banned". that is hyperbole. unless you have a criminal record or mental illness, no one is talking about "banning" anything.

control yourself, marty.

I cannot get a CCW in NYC without showing cause for one in NYC. I am banned from carrying a handgun unless The NYPD approves my reason. It is a de facto ban, because they don't accept "because it's my right" as an answer.

Do you think that situation is right? Is that what you want spread to the rest of the country?

This is what you have to go through to just get a house permit in NYC.

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

The process for obtaining a handgun license in New York City is long (between 3 – 6 months, and waits up to 8 months are not uncommon), and compared to many other jurisdictions, rather expensive. It’s not particularly difficult, but it is tedious and incredibly time consuming. It tests your patience, and there is a lot of bureaucracy to deal with.

funny, I live in Brooklyn and my husband has a target/premise permit.

inconvenience is not an issue. no one has a right against inconvenience in purchasing a weapon when there is a societal interest.

again, even scalia, the wingiest of the wingers on the court acknowledged that the right to gun ownership is subject to reasonable regulation.

Law abiding persons right to self defense is not limited to the premises of their home. Any law to the contrary should be overturned.

and yet they haven't been.

It's coming. If you notice, only regressive States have such laws and the era of the regressive is coming to an end, people are fed up with your BS.

 

[Contumacious]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

The problem is no one gets to decide who gets guns and who doesn't. How does one determine who will use a gun to kill another human being until they do?

Background checks would help, licensing too and gun registration. Since the gun advocates can't or won't police themselves, the time will come when the will rue their stubborn resistance to sensible gun control.

The Federal courts – and in time the Supreme Court – will ultimately determine what firearm regulatory measures pass Constitutional muster, and what measures do not.

As is the case with other conflicts and controversies of the day, much of this will be resolved through the legal process, not the political.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is currently evolving, and will continue to evolve for decades to come.

THAT IS PURE BULLSHIT


THE COURT PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED THAT OUR RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME IS


EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL


NOT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE EXERCISE THEREOF


SO THERE IS ******NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING************* FOR THE COURTS TO RESOLVE.


N-O-T-H-I-N-G


.

 

[Arianrhod]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

I notice you skipped right over the nutters, the spouse abusers, and the pedophiles. I wonder why?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laws placing restrictions on AR platform and similar rifles are Constitutional:

SAFE Act decison

Again, there may be those to don't like current Second Amendment jurisprudence, there may be those who disagree with current Second Amendment jurisprudence – but as a fact of Constitutional law the above regulatory policies comport with the Second Amendment right.

 

[Contumacious]

Background checks and magazine restrictions are Constitutional..........
https://www.coloradoattorneygeneral...4/06/26/062614_krieger_opinion_outfitters.pdf

........In Cuba, the former USSR, Israhell (special law for Palestinians)


.

And this is an example of the ignorance, stupidity, and ridiculous extremism that serves only to undermine the Second Amendment right.

So you position is based on ignorance and constitutes a clear example of fascism, socialism government supremacist stupidity, and ridiculous extremism that serves only to undermine the Constitutional Right emphasized by the Second and Ninth Amendments .

 

[Flash]

[

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...

Most gun control laws are across the board and not targeted towards criminals. In fact that is what both the Heller and the McDonald cases were design to remedy.

The typical law abiding citizens are usually the only ones affected by most gun control laws. Criminals simply do not abide by them.

You can never trust the Liberals top define "reasonable" gun control laws because they are never reasonable. I can give you several examples if you are confused about that.

I don't need a stupid uneducated low information Libtard establishing limits on my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[OKTexas]

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

do you think judges are more equipped than doctors to make medical judgments? i'd think not. and they'd be just as likely to have their own opinions. and I certainly wouldn't want some NRA shill making those decisions.

so again, what's the appropriate answer? solve the problem since I think we can all agree that people who shouldn't have guns get them.

A doctors or bureaucrats opinion doesn't meet the definition of due process, a judges opinion does. You can't take away constitutional rights without due process.

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

If a doctor feels a patient is a threat to themselves or others they have a legal responsibility to report that finding to legal authorities, if they do, their liability ends there. It is up to the legal system to make the final judgment.

In a lot of jusrisdictions, it starts with the Coroner.

And your point would be...............?

 

[OKTexas]

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

do you think judges are more equipped than doctors to make medical judgments? i'd think not. and they'd be just as likely to have their own opinions. and I certainly wouldn't want some NRA shill making those decisions.

so again, what's the appropriate answer? solve the problem since I think we can all agree that people who shouldn't have guns get them.

A doctors or bureaucrats opinion doesn't meet the definition of due process, a judges opinion does. You can't take away constitutional rights without due process.

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

If a doctor feels a patient is a threat to themselves or others they have a legal responsibility to report that finding to legal authorities, if they do, their liability ends there. It is up to the legal system to make the final judgment.

Except Jillian wants them and therapists and other noisy bodies to be able to just declare them unhinged, for those people to then lose their rights and have to pay their own money to go to Court to have them judged accurate.

I agree, but that's not due process.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong. It's all Americans right.

Serious question Jill: Why should Pedophiles NOT own guns? Should they NOT defend themselves?

Prediction: You'll just laugh and not answer.

pedophiles shouldn't own guns because they have committed crimes against another person. fair enough?

i'm not laughing and I did answer. I was sort of expecting someone to ask that.

Any Felon is denied the right to own firearms. If convicted of pedophile I assume that is a felony. If not then YOU need to change the laws.

not if their neighbor sells them the gun or a straw man buys it for them.

If the neighbor is aware the person is a felon, it's already illegal to sell to him, strawman purchases are already illegal.

BULLSHIT.

WHEN THE MOTHERFUCKERS FINALLY OUTLAW FIREARMS YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY THEM FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR OR THE BLACKMARKET.


.

Can't happen without a constitutional amendment, and that won't happen either.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

I already said... criminal history... mental illness as a start. isn't that an objective standard?

Mental illness.....

And yet the far left says being right wing is being mentally ill.

Not hard to tell where this is going.