Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Vandalshandle]

The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country. The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks. Why can't we have access to those things? What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?

Conservatives also have the right to exhibit their ignorance and stupidity, a right you exercise freely and often.

You should rethink that. I came back just to embarrass your dumb libtard ass. Your Democrats were Humiliated today in the Senate. Do they even want to show there face for more. Say goodbye asshole. 2020 President Trump. 2020 the House goes back to the Republicans and the Senate takes more Republican seats. You and your loser liberals are being embarrassed and it only gets worse from here. Do you want us to buy your plane ticket to Russia, North Korea, Iran because those will be the only places that will except Democratic scum like you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My, my! Somebody needs a nap!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank God for the right to keep and bear arms...

Five crooks try robbing woman at gunpoint at ATM. But she also has a gun — and shoots 17-year-old in self-defense, cops say.

So it looks like we should thank the liberals for insisting on a Bill of Rights.

-Today's- liberals would describe -those- liberals as right-wing extremists.

 

[P@triot]

Thank God for the right to keep and bear arms...

Five crooks try robbing woman at gunpoint at ATM. But she also has a gun — and shoots 17-year-old in self-defense, cops say.

So it looks like we should thank the liberals for insisting on a Bill of Rights.

And that is exactly why they say, "looks can be deceiving". Because ignorant, uneducated people such as yourself view things with extreme bias and prejudice - causing you to see what isn't there and never was.

Small government, maximum liberty built this nation. Who shares that ideology? Conservatives. Who wants to eliminate the U.S. Constitution claiming it was created by slave rapists? Leftists.

 

[P@triot]

Thank God for her right to keep and bear arms...

'I don't want to shoot him, but I'm going to have to!': Woman on 911 call repeatedly warns burglar to leave her home before firing gun | Blaze Media

The suspect allegedly tried breaking into other homes on the block

www.theblaze.com

 

[Rigby5]

Thank God for the right to keep and bear arms...

Five crooks try robbing woman at gunpoint at ATM. But she also has a gun — and shoots 17-year-old in self-defense, cops say.

So it looks like we should thank the liberals for insisting on a Bill of Rights.

And that is exactly why they say, "looks can be deceiving". Because ignorant, uneducated people such as yourself view things with extreme bias and prejudice - causing you to see what isn't there and never was.

Small government, maximum liberty built this nation. Who shares that ideology? Conservatives. Who wants to eliminate the U.S. Constitution claiming it was created by slave rapists? Leftists.

Not really.
Gun control in the US historically was mostly supported by right wingers who wanted to allow gangs like the KKK to more easily intimidate immigrants, Blacks, labor organizers, etc.

Before the Clintons, it was Reagan who was the lead for gun control. The Clintons and the assault weapons ban was the first time the left supported gun control.

 

[P@triot]

The Clintons and the assault weapons ban was the first time the left supported gun control.

Thank you for illustrating how the left continues to get more and more radicalized. It’s why so many are walking away.

 

[P@triot]

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms...

FBI says skyrocketing demand for guns has broken record for background checks | Blaze Media

The coronavirus has turned out millions of new gun owners

www.theblaze.com

 

[Rigby5]

The Clintons and the assault weapons ban was the first time the left supported gun control.

Thank you for illustrating how the left continues to get more and more radicalized. It’s why so many are walking away.

I don't consider the Clintons as "more radicalized" as much as corporate sell outs.
For it is the wealthy elite who want gun control for when fossil fuels run out and the economic pie shrinks.

 

[Rye Catcher]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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"

In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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"

In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.

Yeah?
So?

 

[Rye Catcher]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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"

In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.

Yeah?
So?

So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe". Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?

Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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"

In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.

Yeah?
So?

So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe". Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?

Let me dumb this down for you...
These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.
So...?

Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background.

Clearly.
Again: So?

 

[Rye Catcher]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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"

In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.

Yeah?
So?

So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe". Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?

Let me dumb this down for you...
These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.
So...?

Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background.

Clearly.
Again: So?

I wrote: So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe". Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?

And,

"Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background."
[/QUOTE]

The 2nd A.: “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.” NO WHERE IN THIS SENTENCE IS THE PHRASE,
"These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd."

So, I'm not a dumbass, and my comment you use in your signature line is accurate, i.e. your personal attack on me: "Let me dumb this down for you..." is your safe harbor. Why not be honest for once in your life and admit that gun control can or cannot be an infringement, depending on circumstances.

Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation. Thus, Background Checks may not be sufficient but are necessary to determine who can possess a weapon/arm.

Try to spin your way out of that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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"

In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.

Yeah?
So?

So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe". Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?

Let me dumb this down for you...
These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.
So...?

Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background.

Clearly.
Again: So?

I wrote: So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe". Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?
And,
"Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background."

Yes. I responded.

NO WHERE IN THIS SENTENCE IS THE PHRASE,
"These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd."

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not everyone in the US qualifies as part of "the people", and thus, not everyone in the US has the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
This includes individuals who have had their right removed thru due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.

So, I'm not a dumbass,

Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation. Thus, Background Checks may not be sufficient but are necessary to determine who can possess a weapon/arm.

Non seq.
Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, there's no demonstrable necessity in a wholesale and plenary restraint on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, pending an investigation into who -might- be breaking the law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation.

An investigation is NOT due process.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not everyone in the US qualifies as part of "the people", and thus, not everyone in the US has the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
This includes individuals who have had their right removed thru due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.

Banning the possession and use of firearms requires DUE PROCESS, correct?

If so, every single federal and state gun law restricting "the people" from possession or access to firearms is unconstitutional on its face, without due process, right?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation.

An investigation is NOT due process.

Correct.
In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reaonable suspicion or probable cause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not everyone in the US qualifies as part of "the people", and thus, not everyone in the US has the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
This includes individuals who have had their right removed thru due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.

Banning the possession and use of firearms requires DUE PROCESS, correct?

Due process, in this regard, ended in DC v Heller. which overturned the ban in question.

If so, every single federal and state gun law restricting "the people" from possession or access to firearms is unconstitutional on its face, without due process, right?

"Every single" is pretty broad.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation.

An investigation is NOT due process.

Correct.
In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reaonable suspicion or probable cause.

And, therefore, ANY law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, without due process, should be stricken, correct?

Laws that restrict a certain type of weapon reasonably tied to service in a militia (Miller), which is a military force requiring state-of-the-art weapons and equipment that the ordinary soldier would carry (like the M4 or M249, or more likely in the future, the SCAR-16/17) would be unlawful infringement without due process, correct?

Individuals who have not been adjudicated and had rights temporarily or permanently revoked should be UNRESTRICTED in possession of or access to proper military weapons (or as the commie gun grabbers call their restricted, semi-auto, non-military counterparts) "weapons of war."

.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation.

An investigation is NOT due process.

.

Really? Not according to Ballentines Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition

Rochin v. California, 342 US 165, 96 L. Ed. 183, 72 S Ct. 205, 25 ALR2d 1396