Mom's Demand Action- no more dead children

[martybegan]

Saying that background checks, safer schools and no more high capacity clips is unconstitutional is blatantly appealing to emotion and ignorance. I have not seen any sign of the Constitution being violated. Just the opposite. If that were the case, I would be against it. OTOH, I'm not a Constitutional scholar nor am I a Supreme Court Justice.

Everyone is against the shooting of more children, we merely disagree on the best ways to stop it.

When car makers were forced to make cars safer, the hue and cry was that the expense of seat belts and airbags would drive them out of business because the cost of cars would go up and people would not buy them. Didn't happen. Same thing will happen with guns.

There is no right to own a car. Also seatbelts and airbags do on infringe on your use of the car, and are applied equally to all users of cars, be it governmental or private. Finally punishment for not using a seatbelt is only AFTER you are caught not using it. you do not have to register your seat belt, nor check in with the cops so they can make sure you are using it. Finally manufacturers are not liable if you fail to use your seatbelt legally, or properly.

Think through your metaphors before you use the,.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Good points Marty ... you have to take a test and get a license to drive a car. You also have to have insurance and/or prove you have the financial capability to pay for any damage you and your car do. And yes if your car does damage, you are held responsible for that damage.

Sounds like a pretty good starting point for making gun owners responsible.

I own guns, all legal and have no objection to being held responsible for that ownership.

We'll never save every life taken by a car or a gun but that is no excuse for throwing up our hands and inviting criminals, illegal immigrants, known terrorists to just fire away because there's nothing we can do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Finally punishment for not using a seatbelt is only AFTER you are caught not using it

This is the cruix of the biscuit

In regards to criminal posession of guns, they believe that there should be laws that will PREVENT criminals from breaking the law.

In any other area, they'd scream "prior restraint!" and tell you its unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

Good points Marty ... you have to take a test and get a license to drive a car. You also have to have insurance and/or prove you have the financial capability to pay for any damage you and your car do. And yes if your car does damage, you are held responsible for that damage.

Sounds like a pretty good starting point for making gun owners responsible.

I own guns, all legal and have no objection to being held responsible for that ownership.

We'll never save every life taken by a car or a gun but that is no excuse for throwing up our hands and inviting criminals, illegal immigrants, known terrorists to just fire away because there's nothing we can do.

You know that grabbers would make it so insurance would price people out of the ability to own guns. Why do you hate poor people?

And again, you don't have a right to a car. you have a right to a gun. An insurance requirement is infringement.

The insurance requirement for cars is so that our courts are not flooded with car accident cases (moreso than now) not for any social engineering experiment, which in the case of "gun" insurance is clearly the case.

 

[Againsheila]

I want reverse Mohawks illegal, see how much good that does?

Okay, you may have a point there......Personally, I think you should set your sights a little higher, but if that's the sort of public concern you think a lot about, that's fine with me. Perhaps you can get up a group of concerned citizens and get "ahead" of the issue.

Now see, I would never do that because while I don't like reverse Mohawks, I'm not going to tell someone else they can't have one no matter how stupid it makes them and our country look. I would never infringe on their rights to look ridiculous.

 

[Circe]

You know that grabbers would make it so insurance would price people out of the ability to own guns. Why do you hate poor people?

What a great idea!! That would sure fix Chicago. I'm for it: that's actually a very creative solution, you know, congrats. Put insurance WAAAAAAAAAY up, say at a thousand dollars per gun, and that would reduce gun ownership substantially, especially the multiple guns too many now are stockpiling that get stolen and used to shoot up schools by the local teens.

It would also tend to reduce gun ownership by the poor, who have the worst overall criminal records, and leave them in the hands of the rich, who have, after all, the most to lose from criminals.

This is a great idea. Really. You get credit for it.

I've noticed you have a lot of good ideas. I don't think you LIKE them all, but you are one of those people who pop with ideas like firecrackers. Her obituary said Margaret Mead was like that: she popped with ideas like popcorn, and a lot of them weren't good ideas, but it didn't matter because she had so MANY of them.

 

[Circe]

Now see, I would never do that because while I don't like reverse Mohawks, I'm not going to tell someone else they can't have one no matter how stupid it makes them and our country look. I would never infringe on their rights to look ridiculous.

No question about it: you've got a noble cause there.

 

[Esmeralda]

Moms Demand Action | Common Sense Gun Laws

One Million Moms For Gun Control Becomes Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America | Reuters

Moms Demand Action's middle-ground solutions to the escalating problem of gun
violence in the United States are straightforward:

1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

2) Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.

3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF, and ban online
sales of ammunition.
4) Counter gun industry lobbyists' efforts to weaken gun laws at the state
level.

Sounds good to me. Sane. Reasonable,

 

[M14 Shooter]

Moms Demand Action | Common Sense Gun Laws

One Million Moms For Gun Control Becomes Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America | Reuters

Moms Demand Action's middle-ground solutions to the escalating problem of gun
violence in the United States are straightforward:

1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

2) Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.

3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF, and ban online
sales of ammunition.
4) Counter gun industry lobbyists' efforts to weaken gun laws at the state
level.

Sounds good to me. Sane. Reasonable,

Unconstitutional.

 

[Esmeralda]

Moms Demand Action | Common Sense Gun Laws

One Million Moms For Gun Control Becomes Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America | Reuters

Sounds good to me. Sane. Reasonable,

Unconstitutional.

No,not unconstitutional. The constitution does not spell out how many guns one can have, what type or how much ammunition. These laws would simply limit unrestricted access to all types of weapons and masses of ammunition. It is sanity. The founding fathers never visualized the weaponry we have today, nor imagined that private citizens would want to stockpile such weapons. The intent of the constitutional language is to allow a man to own a firearm, not to allow every man to stockpile the type of military hardware that is available today.

 

[martybegan]

You know that grabbers would make it so insurance would price people out of the ability to own guns. Why do you hate poor people?

What a great idea!! That would sure fix Chicago. I'm for it: that's actually a very creative solution, you know, congrats. Put insurance WAAAAAAAAAY up, say at a thousand dollars per gun, and that would reduce gun ownership substantially, especially the multiple guns too many now are stockpiling that get stolen and used to shoot up schools by the local teens.

It would also tend to reduce gun ownership by the poor, who have the worst overall criminal records, and leave them in the hands of the rich, who have, after all, the most to lose from criminals.

This is a great idea. Really. You get credit for it.

I've noticed you have a lot of good ideas. I don't think you LIKE them all, but you are one of those people who pop with ideas like firecrackers. Her obituary said Margaret Mead was like that: she popped with ideas like popcorn, and a lot of them weren't good ideas, but it didn't matter because she had so MANY of them.

Its not my idea, its the idea that the people behind this whole "insurance" scam intended to implement all along.

Also, considering most guns in the ghettos are illegal anyway, the result would be only LAW ABIDING people being priced out of owning guns.

But you already knew that. I suppose you prefer criminals armed over non criminals armed.

 

[martybegan]

Sounds good to me. Sane. Reasonable,

Unconstitutional.

No,not unconstitutional. The constitution does not spell out how many guns one can have, what type or how much ammunition. These laws would simply limit unrestricted access to all types of weapons and masses of ammunition. It is sanity. The founding fathers never visualized the weaponry we have today, nor imagined that private citizens would want to stockpile such weapons. The intent of the constitutional language is to allow a man to own a firearm, not to allow every man to stockpile the type of military hardware that is available today.

It does not say "right to keep and bear arm", it says "arms"

Another end run around the 2nd amendment by a grabber.

 

[Esmeralda]

Unconstitutional.

No,not unconstitutional. The constitution does not spell out how many guns one can have, what type or how much ammunition. These laws would simply limit unrestricted access to all types of weapons and masses of ammunition. It is sanity. The founding fathers never visualized the weaponry we have today, nor imagined that private citizens would want to stockpile such weapons. The intent of the constitutional language is to allow a man to own a firearm, not to allow every man to stockpile the type of military hardware that is available today.

It does not say "right to keep and bear arm", it says "arms"

Another end run around the 2nd amendment by a grabber.

LOL The language, 'to bear arms' means a gun, a single gun. That is how it is said. Sorry. It doesn't mean multiple guns.

 

[martybegan]

No,not unconstitutional. The constitution does not spell out how many guns one can have, what type or how much ammunition. These laws would simply limit unrestricted access to all types of weapons and masses of ammunition. It is sanity. The founding fathers never visualized the weaponry we have today, nor imagined that private citizens would want to stockpile such weapons. The intent of the constitutional language is to allow a man to own a firearm, not to allow every man to stockpile the type of military hardware that is available today.

It does not say "right to keep and bear arm", it says "arms"

Another end run around the 2nd amendment by a grabber.

LOL The language, 'to bear arms' means a gun, a single gun. That is how it is said. Sorry. It doesn't mean multiple guns.

It doesnt mean just one either. you are grasping at straws, as usual.

still and end run because you know you don't have the numbers to repeal the 2nd amendment, so you go running to the courts and the legislators and ignore the consitution when you see fit.

 

[Esmeralda]

It does not say "right to keep and bear arm", it says "arms"

Another end run around the 2nd amendment by a grabber.

LOL The language, 'to bear arms' means a gun, a single gun. That is how it is said. Sorry. It doesn't mean multiple guns.

It doesnt mean just one either. you are grasping at straws, as usual.

still and end run because you know you don't have the numbers to repeal the 2nd amendment, so you go running to the courts and the legislators and ignore the consitution when you see fit.

I am not grasping at straws. There is no such thing as 'to bear arm.' No such terminology exists or ever did. The language that was used at that time is bearing arms. That is how it was said, and they didn't mean having multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sounds good to me. Sane. Reasonable,

Unconstitutional.

No,not unconstitutional. The constitution does not spell out how many guns one can have, what type or how much ammunition.

The constitution specifies that you cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Any limitations on the right to keep and bear arms not inherent to same infringe upon that right; limits the kinds and numbers of firearms you may own, and the amount of ammunition for those firearms are limits not inherent to the right, and therefore infrige upon it.

The founding fathers never visualized the weaponry...

I understand you also believe that your cell phone conversations do not fall under the protection of the 4th amendment,.

The intent of the constitutional language is...

...to protect an individual right to possess firearms that is unconnected with service in a militia, and to use those firearmsfor traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
-Your- interpretation is completely unsupportable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No,not unconstitutional. The constitution does not spell out how many guns one can have, what type or how much ammunition. These laws would simply limit unrestricted access to all types of weapons and masses of ammunition. It is sanity. The founding fathers never visualized the weaponry we have today, nor imagined that private citizens would want to stockpile such weapons. The intent of the constitutional language is to allow a man to own a firearm, not to allow every man to stockpile the type of military hardware that is available today.

It does not say "right to keep and bear arm", it says "arms"

Another end run around the 2nd amendment by a grabber.

LOL The language, 'to bear arms' means a gun, a single gun. That is how it is said. Sorry. It doesn't mean multiple guns.

There is no way to show that this claim is sound.

 

[martybegan]

LOL The language, 'to bear arms' means a gun, a single gun. That is how it is said. Sorry. It doesn't mean multiple guns.

It doesnt mean just one either. you are grasping at straws, as usual.

still and end run because you know you don't have the numbers to repeal the 2nd amendment, so you go running to the courts and the legislators and ignore the consitution when you see fit.

I am not grasping at straws. There is no such thing as 'to bear arm.' No such terminology exists or ever did. The language that was used at that time is bearing arms. That is how it was said, and they didn't mean having multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

You have no idea if that is true, or not true. You think its true because it supports your agenda.

If they wanted people to have only one muzzle loading musket, they would have said, one muzzle loading musket. They said "arms" which they knew would become more advanced with time, as they had seen it happen in the past, from arqubuses to matchlocks, to flintlocks etc. etc.

They specifically restricted infringment on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the STATES right, the PEOPLE's.

 

[Esmeralda]

It doesnt mean just one either. you are grasping at straws, as usual.

still and end run because you know you don't have the numbers to repeal the 2nd amendment, so you go running to the courts and the legislators and ignore the consitution when you see fit.

I am not grasping at straws. There is no such thing as 'to bear arm.' No such terminology exists or ever did. The language that was used at that time is bearing arms. That is how it was said, and they didn't mean having multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

You have no idea if that is true, or not true. You think its true because it supports your agenda.

If they wanted people to have only one muzzle loading musket, they would have said, one muzzle loading musket. They said "arms" which they knew would become more advanced with time, as they had seen it happen in the past, from arqubuses to matchlocks, to flintlocks etc. etc.

They specifically restricted infringment on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the STATES right, the PEOPLE's.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution. The language of the constitution makes it clear that the bearing of arms is to be part of a well-regulated Militia. As well, no one is trying to 'infringe' on your right to have a gun; what is being proposed are some sane regulations in having them, sane and reasonable regulations that will make all of us safer.

Those of you who are clinging to this idea that there should be no regulations on the ownership of firearms are tearing the country apart, even threatening to destroy it. It's despicable and very, very sad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution.

Our interpretation is standing and settled law.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home