Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I want to address this a little more. Tell me where you disagree.

1. Any weapon or equipment reasonably related to service in a militia is protected by the 2nd Amendment (See U.S. v. Miller).

2. Such protection is applied to the States via the 14th Amendment . (See Heller; See also McDonald v. City of Chicago)

3. Any law (state, local, or federal) that preemptively restricts an individual's right to keep and bear arms that are reasonably related to service in a militia is facially unconstitutional.

Tell me what is wrong with any of these statements and why they are wrong (if any).

.

 

[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.

.

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

I prefer Black's Law Dictionary (I know Bryan Garner).

And, did you even bother to fucking read the Rochin case?

NOWHERE in the holding does the court state that an investigation is due process. That case actually supports my position, if anything.

He was denied due process when they made him barf up the morphine he swallowed.

"The conviction is reversed, because it was obtained by methods violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 166-174."

.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

I want to address this a little more. Tell me where you disagree.

1. Any weapon or equipment reasonably related to service in a militia is protected by the 2nd Amendment (See U.S. v. Miller).

2. Such protection is applied to the States via the 14th Amendment . (See Heller; See also McDonald v. City of Chicago)

3. Any law (state, local, or federal) that preemptively restricts an individual's right to keep and bear arms that are reasonably related to service in a militia is facially unconstitutional.

Tell me what is wrong with any of these statements and why they are wrong (if any).

.

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.

 

[Rye Catcher]

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court. I have seen due process argued plenty of times, something I suspect in which you have no experience.

 

[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

I prefer Black's Law Dictionary (I know Bryan Garner).

And, did you even bother to fucking read the Rochin case?

NOWHERE in the holding does the court state that an investigation is due process. That case actually supports my position, if anything.

He was denied due process when they made him barf up the morphine he swallowed.

"The conviction is reversed, because it was obtained by methods violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 166-174."

.

The point was there was an investigation. Read and comprehend what my claim was, then consider this:

"one of the most famous and perhaps the most famous quoted definitions of "due process of law" is given by Daniel Webster in his argument in the Dartmouth College Case [Dartmouth College v. Woodworth (US) 4 Wheat518, 4 L Ed. 629] wherein he declared that by due process of law is meant, "the law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry" (Investigation) "and renders judgement only after trial".​

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.

Nope. Didn't happen.

If you HAD, you'd understand that In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

You don't.

 

[Rye Catcher]

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.

Nope. Didn't happen.

If you HAD, you'd understand that In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

You don't.

Is this your opinion, or is there a case which you neglected to offer. I suspect your claim was copied from a blog by a lawyer for the NRA, or someone employed by the NRA, but not in any case before a Federal Court.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.

Nope. Didn't happen.

If you HAD, you'd understand that In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

You don't.

Is this your opinion, or is there a case which you neglected to offer. I suspect your claim was copied from a blog by a lawyer for the NRA, or someone employed by the NRA, but not in any case before a Federal Court.

Tell us why you think a police officer can, w/o reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, constitutionally stop someone walking down the sidewalk , restrain them, and check to see if they have any outstanding warrants or other legal impairments.

Go ahead, Terry - I dare you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

That is nowhere in Heller.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

Those protections still apply. They are only removed AFTER due process.

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Due process being required for all those determinations.

Still, why are people restricted who have never been deemed a danger to anyone? Like me. I have never even been arrested for ANYTHING. I have never even tried an illegal narcotic. ABSENT Due Process, I do not have the ability to obtain an M4 or M249, despite those weapons being PRECISELY those related to the preservation of and service in a militia (See Miller).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.

You were a lawyer?

Bullshit.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The point was there was an investigation. Read and comprehend what my claim was, then consider this:

"one of the most famous and perhaps the most famous quoted definitions of "due process of law" is given by Daniel Webster in his argument in the Dartmouth College Case [Dartmouth College v. Woodworth (US) 4 Wheat518, 4 L Ed. 629] wherein he declared that by due process of law is meant, "the law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry" (Investigation) "and renders judgement only after trial".

You seem to want to ignore this part that goes with the "inquiry" part.

"...and renders judgment only after trial."

.

 

[Rye Catcher]

1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

False.
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

Your opinion doesn't matter. The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms. As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.

3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.

Nope. Didn't happen.

If you HAD, you'd understand that In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

You don't.

Is this your opinion, or is there a case which you neglected to offer. I suspect your claim was copied from a blog by a lawyer for the NRA, or someone employed by the NRA, but not in any case before a Federal Court.

Tell us why you think a police officer can, w/o reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, constitutionally stop someone walking down the sidewalk , restrain them, and check to see if they have any outstanding warrants or other legal impairments.

Go ahead, Terry - I dare you.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a very subjective term, as is probable cause. Both can and are argued in criminal matters too often. These issue too come into play when one speaks to "due process".

Who is "Terry"? I know I've told you time and again that if something you post is directed to me, you use Mr. Catcher or Sir. You really need to learn you place in society.

Once again you fail to respond to a simple question. I must only infer that you made up you comment or read it in a blog.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.

You were a lawyer?

Bullshit.

.

Nope. I did take LSAT and did take a few classes, but I had by then been employed in my first LE job as an Adult Probation Officer and learned I did not like criminal attorney's - justice came in last as both the defense and prosecution put winning first, with very little or no concern for defendants, victims or witnesses.

 

[Rye Catcher]

The point was there was an investigation. Read and comprehend what my claim was, then consider this:

"one of the most famous and perhaps the most famous quoted definitions of "due process of law" is given by Daniel Webster in his argument in the Dartmouth College Case [Dartmouth College v. Woodworth (US) 4 Wheat518, 4 L Ed. 629] wherein he declared that by due process of law is meant, "the law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry" (Investigation) "and renders judgement only after trial".

You seem to want to ignore this part that goes with the "inquiry" part.

"...and renders judgment only after trial."

.

No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.

Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States. They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.

The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A. No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

justice came in last as both the defense and prosecution put winning first, with very little or no concern for defendants, victims or witnesses.

Yes. That has been my experience as well, especially the prosecutors, despite their statutory duty:

"It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused."

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - General Duties of Officers

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.

You see how that bypasses due process and takes away a right PRIOR TO due process, right? That is ass backwards.

Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States. They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.

But Miller puts that issue to rest while also shooting down bans on the M4 and M249. (holding that a weapon must have a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia)

The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A. No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.

Because such a bill would immediately be shot down (pun intended). If you can't win outright, you must go at it in backdoor fashion, which you gun grabber have....REPEATEDLY. You even made us fight you all the way to the SCOTUS over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, when you motherfuckers know good and goddamn well that it is. You were just trying to backdoor it. You know you were.

This is why your ilk can never be trusted. You don't give a cocksucking rat fuck about preserving OUR rights. You want to take them away, by any means possible.

Stop denying it. It does nothing but make us even more suspicious of ANYTHING you try.

.

 

[Rye Catcher]

justice came in last as both the defense and prosecution put winning first, with very little or no concern for defendants, victims or witnesses.

Yes. That has been my experience as well, especially the prosecutors, despite their statutory duty:

"It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused."

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - General Duties of Officers

In my experience, in probation and two other law enforcement assignments, both sides seek to win; clearly the prosecution seeks to win, but that side, along with pressure from LE officers, deputies and agents, over charge in too many cases; likewise, defense lawyers argue in the exact opposite direction, without the power. Both believe they are seeking justice, but the application of charges can vary by the status* of the defendant.

*Social status, color, ethnicity, age, gender, attitude, education, etc. etc.

 

[Rye Catcher]

No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.

You see how that bypasses due process and takes away a right PRIOR TO due process, right? That is ass backwards.

Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States. They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.

But Miller puts that issue to rest while also shooting down bans on the M4 and M249. (holding that a weapon must have a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia)

The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A. No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.

Because such a bill would immediately be shot down (pun intended). If you can't win outright, you must go at it in backdoor fashion, which you gun grabber have....REPEATEDLY. You even made us fight you all the way to the SCOTUS over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, when you motherfuckers know good and goddamn well that it is. You were just trying to backdoor it. You know you were.

This is why your ilk can never be trusted. You don't give a cocksucking rat fuck about preserving OUR rights. You want to take them away, by any means possible.

Stop denying it. It does nothing but make us even more suspicious of ANYTHING you try.

.

I'm not denying anything, your post here is what I meant by Moot; we will never agree on any aspect of gun control no matter how many victims end up in the morgue and how you view gun control.

You believe "shall not infringe" is sacrosanct, unless someone is either a felon or mentally ill. Without vetting in a comprehensive background check, we will only know after the shooter kills innocent victims that he is a felon and/or mentally ill.

In short you would put your right to own guns without any interference from the government before the right to live by a child who is at school, in church or attending a concert; before any clerk in any store, or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when some kook is seeking suicide by cop.

 

[freyasman]

No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.

You see how that bypasses due process and takes away a right PRIOR TO due process, right? That is ass backwards.

Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States. They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.

But Miller puts that issue to rest while also shooting down bans on the M4 and M249. (holding that a weapon must have a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia)

The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A. No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.

Because such a bill would immediately be shot down (pun intended). If you can't win outright, you must go at it in backdoor fashion, which you gun grabber have....REPEATEDLY. You even made us fight you all the way to the SCOTUS over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, when you motherfuckers know good and goddamn well that it is. You were just trying to backdoor it. You know you were.

This is why your ilk can never be trusted. You don't give a cocksucking rat fuck about preserving OUR rights. You want to take them away, by any means possible.

Stop denying it. It does nothing but make us even more suspicious of ANYTHING you try.

.

I'm not denying anything, your post here is what I meant by Moot; we will never agree on any aspect of gun control no matter how many victims end up in the morgue and how you view gun control.

You believe "shall not infringe" is sacrosanct, unless someone is either a felon or mentally ill. Without vetting in a comprehensive background check, we will only know after the shooter kills innocent victims that he is a felon and/or mentally ill.

In short you would put your right to own guns without any interference from the government before the right to live by a child who is at school, in church or attending a concert; before any clerk in any store, or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when some kook is seeking suicide by cop.

That's a bullshit argument. (eyeroll)

Freedom ain't safe and it never will be, but it's better than the alternative....... always.