Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Auld Phart]

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.

I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.

Still trolling?

I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.

Everything you post is trolling.

Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?

"Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"

Yes, you probably are

 

[Auld Phart]

I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.

Still trolling?

I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.

Everything you post is trolling.

Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?

"Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"

Yes, you probably are

I've wasted enough time on you, troll.

bye

 

[danielpalos]

Not enough of a social work ethic for free to have a clue or a Cause; I got it Person on the clueless and Causeless and too lazy to become less ignorant of the law, on the Right.

 

[Indofred]

I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
I would introduce one gun law:

If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.

People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.

All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.

 

[Ernie S.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution[131] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[132][133]

Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country," both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[133]

 

[Ernie S.]

I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
I would introduce one gun law:

If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.

People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.

All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.

I'm all for issuing judges in death penalty cases a .357 magnum.
"This court hear-by sentences you to death." BANG.

 

[Ernie S.]

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

The Wiki article on Amendment 2 I linked above has some interesting content from the Framers and their contemporaries as to why the amendment says "shall not be
infringed"; mainly because English law restricted arms to Protestants and limited design "to preserve game". Interesting that hunting comes up so much in the Liberal argument. Have Conservatives have become the Liberals' Catholics?

 

[danielpalos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution[131] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[132][133]

Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country," both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[133]

Unfortunately, it also means the People need to have a Constitutional clue and a Constitutional Cause. Unlike the right.

 

[Ernie S.]

Still trolling?

I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.

Everything you post is trolling.

Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?

"Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"

Yes, you probably are

I've wasted enough time on you, troll.

bye

Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.

 

[Auld Phart]

I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.

Everything you post is trolling.

Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?

"Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"

Yes, you probably are

I've wasted enough time on you, troll.

bye

Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.

I should have.

He is now, tho.
I only enjoy slogging thru a swamp to a certain degree, then I need to wash off, or dispose of, my waders.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.

Everything you post is trolling.

Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?

"Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"

Yes, you probably are

I've wasted enough time on you, troll.

bye

Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.

Here is the Operative statement from Judge Story's discourse: How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see.

It is clearly legislated as the Intent and Purpose by the legislators.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[danielpalos]

How seriously can we take the clueless and Causeless Right, when they appeal to ignorance instead of working hard to acquire and possess a Constitutional clue and a Constitutional Cause.

 

[2aguy]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
View attachment 45010


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them". I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever.

The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.

Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,

And we have gun control in this country. If you use a gun to commit a crime you can be arrested and put in jail. If you are a convicted criminal, or any of those categories you mentioned and you are caught in the mere possession of a gun you can be arrested and put in jail. That is gun control at it's finest.....that gun control works. The other schemes you have do not work, and just make it more difficult for law abiding, peaceful citizens to own guns.

 

[2aguy]

Yawn.
Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do

Yep, you do. And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.

Yes. This makes you the fool, however.

LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I"). You're pitiful.

He's right.
We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures. None of them has made anyone any safer. All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.

An 11 year old child received a D on his report card. His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.

The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.

The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom. He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.

A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event. One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.

Rabbi(t) is full of shit.

Yes...and in a country of over 320 million people...how many children die because they found a gun and used it? Less than 100 a year. The leading cause of death of children is riding in a car. There are 90 million homes with guns in them, and over 12.8 million people carry guns for self defense...the number of accidental deaths each year.....505.

The number of times guns are used to stop or prevent violent crime and save lives each year on average....2 million. That is non military, non police use of a gun for self defense.

 

[2aguy]

Yawn.
Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do

Yep, you do. And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.

Yes. This makes you the fool, however.

LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I"). You're pitiful.

He's right.
We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures. None of them has made anyone any safer. All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.

An 11 year old child received a D on his report card. His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.

The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.

The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom. He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.

A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event. One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.

Rabbi(t) is full of shit.

And as to how foolish you are...the leading method of suicide for children in Canada......a listed gun control paradise for gun control extremists....suffocation.....

Suicide among children and adolescents in Canada trends and sex differences 1980 2008

Interpretation:

Our results show that suicide rates in Canada are increasing among female children and adolescents and decreasing among male children and adolescents. Limiting access to lethal means has some potential to mitigate risk. However, suffocation, which has become the predominant method for committing suicide for these age groups, is not amenable to this type of primary prevention.

Suicide was ranked as the second leading cause of death among Canadians aged 10–34 years in 2008.1 It is recognized that suicidal behaviour and ideation is an important public health issue among children and adolescents; disturbingly, suicide is a leading cause of Canadian childhood mortality (i.e., among youths aged 10–19 years).2,3

Between 1980 and 2008, there were substantial improvements in mortality attributable to unintentional injury among 10–19 year olds, with rates decreasing from 37.7 per 100 000 to 10.7 per 100 000; suicide rates, however, showed less improvement, with only a small reduction during the same period (from 6.2 per 100 000 in 1980 to 5.2 per 100 000 in 2008).1

Previous studies that looked at suicides among Canadian adolescents and young adults (i.e., people aged 15–25 years) have reported rates as being generally stable over time, but with a marked increase in suicides by suffocation and a decrease in those involving firearms.2

Wait...so what they are saying is that if they don't use a gun they will still kill themselves......but...but.............gun control.....right......

 

[2aguy]

Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.

Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives 2 million times a year on average. So you need to hang around with different types of men....since the biggest factors in violent death in a home is not gun ownership, but alcohol and drug abuse and a history of violence or criminal activity....hang out with better men...preferably non democrats...they go to jail more often.

 

[2aguy]

Jesus Christ; Because it's just as easy to keep guns our of everyone's hands period. Good bad, left right, Nazi, socialist, nutcase radicals. Enough is enough.

No it isn't. They can't even keep fully automatic rifles out of the hands of European criminals even with all of their extreme gun control.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry moron..

I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.

I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.

And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........

 

[2aguy]

You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US? Dream on

Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.

Suurreee they would. They can't even defend themselves without us. What difference does the number of people in the country make?

Why would you think they can't defend themselves?

US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.

Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.

They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......

This sounds like the sort of high school "my dad's better than your dad" sort of nonsense.

Europe has a history of dangerous pacifism........in the face of great evil.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.

Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.

Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.

Be nice if you could read what I wrote.

I pointed out who couldn't be in a militia, and that it did NOT disqualify them from owning a firearm.

I know this. I don't need you to point this out. However what you wrote didn't have much to do with what I wrote, so what's the point of reading something that's ignored what I said? Don't try and play tricks here.