The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[bigrebnc1775]

If you have been convicted of a felony involving a firearm, you never, ever, ever get to own a firearm, ever again.

then that person should never be released from prison ever

Nope. Period. Full stop.

What do you mean full stop? If they are released they've proven to be rehabilitated if they can't be trusted with a gun they can't be trusted with their freedom.

Tell it to Congress... perhaps they'll change existing Federal law to suit you... but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you... that's way too tough a "sell".

Seems like that is a person who cannot be trusted to walk among us. That person would immediately TRY to illegally acquire a gun to use for illegal purposes. Why allow that person to ever see the light of day.

.

Exactly. that's why I say if you can't be trusted with a gun you should not be out of prison.

 

[Kondor3]

...Good luck with that I suggest you start in those blue inner leftist run cities those will be easier targets when you get done with them bring plenty of replacements and body bags

Very few gun-control advocates favor seizure... some here do it just to get a rise out of gun-rights advocates.

Except for every democrat Presidential candidate, all 4 of the left wing Supreme Court Justices, the leadership of the democrat party at the local, state and federal level.....

Other than those democrats......right?

Nonsense.

Just for grins, let's stick with the more Liberal -leaning wing of the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted...

Please give us a link to statements by each of those four, indicating they favor complete banning or seizure, rather than control.

Or, if that's too much for you, show us where Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamela Harris indicated the same.

Your move, now... or did you just get caught in bull$hit deep enough that you can't make-good on your foolhardy pronouncement?

 

[Kondor3]

then that person should never be released from prison ever

Nope. Period. Full stop.

What do you mean full stop? If they are released they've proven to be rehabilitated if they can't be trusted with a gun they can't be trusted with their freedom.

Tell it to Congress... perhaps they'll change existing Federal law to suit you... but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you... that's way too tough a "sell".

Seems like that is a person who cannot be trusted to walk among us. That person would immediately TRY to illegally acquire a gun to use for illegal purposes. Why allow that person to ever see the light of day.

.

Exactly. that's why I say if you can't be trusted with a gun you should not be out of prison.

Fortunately for hundreds of thousands of convicted felons, they're out now, after serving their sentences, but banned from possessing firearms.

Many living fairly productive lives, without heap-big fire-sticks...

 

[Kondor3]

...Good luck with that I suggest you start in those blue inner leftist run cities those will be easier targets when you get done with them bring plenty of replacements and body bags

Very few gun-control advocates favor seizure... some here do it just to get a rise out of gun-rights advocates.

And those opposed to firearm regulatory measures take the bait each and every time.

What's the bait dumb ass?

Your Honor, the Prosecution rests...

 

[2aguy]

...Good luck with that I suggest you start in those blue inner leftist run cities those will be easier targets when you get done with them bring plenty of replacements and body bags

Very few gun-control advocates favor seizure... some here do it just to get a rise out of gun-rights advocates.

Except for every democrat Presidential candidate, all 4 of the left wing Supreme Court Justices, the leadership of the democrat party at the local, state and federal level.....

Other than those democrats......right?

Nonsense.

Just for grins, let's stick with the more Liberal -leaning wing of the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted...

Please give us a link to statements by each of those four, indicating they favor complete banning or seizure, rather than control.

Or, if that's too much for you, show us where Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamela Harris indicated the same.

Your move, now... or did you just get caught in bull$hit deep enough that you can't make-good on your foolhardy pronouncement?

They all support confiscation....they all hide those views behind these baby steps.....and they all support going after gun makers.....which would essentially end the 2nd Amendment in this country....

Biden..

Joe Biden on Gun Control

Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole


Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.

The anti-gun left wing Justices...

KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters’ assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

Regarding the key issue in McDonald - whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller, her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer.

The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”

Sotomayor

Is Sotomayor Anti-Gun? | RealClearPolitics

noting that her court had previously said "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Souter...

Gun-Control Group Heartened by '76 Souter Brief

When David H. Souter was Attorney General of New Hampshire, his office once argued that the Constitution does not guarantee individual citizens the right to carry firearm

Ginsburg...

NRA-ILA | Justice Ginsburg Once Again Shares Her Intent to Overturn Heller

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

And the dissenting opinion in Heller...

District of Columbia v. Heller/Dissent Breyer - Wikisource, the free online library

More on their thoughts on the second amendment..

Stephen Breyer on Gun Control

Kagan...

Kagan Bad On Guns

here’s more evidence of hostility to gun rights on her part. The Times also reports that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration. Kagan had already been involved in an executive order that required all federal law-enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.” Kagan also may have worked on legislation to effectively close gun shows. “Those moves angered the National Rifle Association, which became even more alarmed in late 1998 when Clinton proposed closing the ‘gun show’ loophole that allowed firearms purchases without background checks.

Beto...

Beto O'Rourke 'is open' to Australia-style mandatory gun confiscation

Kamala..

Kamala Harris Proposes Executive Orders on Gun Control

As a California prosecutor, Ms. Harris supported such legislation, while also calling for bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,

Warren..

Elizabeth Warren unveils gun control plan that pushes for higher taxes on firearms and bullets

 

[Kondor3]

...Good luck with that I suggest you start in those blue inner leftist run cities those will be easier targets when you get done with them bring plenty of replacements and body bags

Very few gun-control advocates favor seizure... some here do it just to get a rise out of gun-rights advocates.

Except for every democrat Presidential candidate, all 4 of the left wing Supreme Court Justices, the leadership of the democrat party at the local, state and federal level.....

Other than those democrats......right?

Nonsense.

Just for grins, let's stick with the more Liberal -leaning wing of the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted...

Please give us a link to statements by each of those four, indicating they favor complete banning or seizure, rather than control.

Or, if that's too much for you, show us where Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamela Harris indicated the same.

Your move, now... or did you just get caught in bull$hit deep enough that you can't make-good on your foolhardy pronouncement?

They all support confiscation....they all hide those views behind these baby steps.....and they all support going after gun makers.....which would essentially end the 2nd Amendment in this country....

Biden..

Joe Biden on Gun Control

Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole


Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.

The anti-gun left wing Justices...

KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters’ assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

Regarding the key issue in McDonald - whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller, her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer.

The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”

Sotomayor

Is Sotomayor Anti-Gun? | RealClearPolitics

noting that her court had previously said "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Souter...

Gun-Control Group Heartened by '76 Souter Brief

When David H. Souter was Attorney General of New Hampshire, his office once argued that the Constitution does not guarantee individual citizens the right to carry firearm

Ginsburg...

NRA-ILA | Justice Ginsburg Once Again Shares Her Intent to Overturn Heller

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

And the dissenting opinion in Heller...

District of Columbia v. Heller/Dissent Breyer - Wikisource, the free online library

More on their thoughts on the second amendment..

Stephen Breyer on Gun Control

Kagan...

Kagan Bad On Guns

here’s more evidence of hostility to gun rights on her part. The Times also reports that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration. Kagan had already been involved in an executive order that required all federal law-enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.” Kagan also may have worked on legislation to effectively close gun shows. “Those moves angered the National Rifle Association, which became even more alarmed in late 1998 when Clinton proposed closing the ‘gun show’ loophole that allowed firearms purchases without background checks.

Beto...

Beto O'Rourke 'is open' to Australia-style mandatory gun confiscation

Kamala..

Kamala Harris Proposes Executive Orders on Gun Control

As a California prosecutor, Ms. Harris supported such legislation, while also calling for bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,

Warren..

Elizabeth Warren unveils gun control plan that pushes for higher taxes on firearms and bullets

Unfortunately for me, I have to go out-and-about in the world today, but hope to come back to this "heritage.org" spin-doctoring festival, to discern what's actually real.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope. Period. Full stop.

What do you mean full stop? If they are released they've proven to be rehabilitated if they can't be trusted with a gun they can't be trusted with their freedom.

Tell it to Congress... perhaps they'll change existing Federal law to suit you... but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you... that's way too tough a "sell".

Seems like that is a person who cannot be trusted to walk among us. That person would immediately TRY to illegally acquire a gun to use for illegal purposes. Why allow that person to ever see the light of day.

.

Exactly. that's why I say if you can't be trusted with a gun you should not be out of prison.

Fortunately for hundreds of thousands of convicted felons, they're out now, after serving their sentences, but banned from possessing firearms.

Many living fairly productive lives, without heap-big fire-sticks...

Not really

 

[Blues Man]

...Let's restrict free speech like that...

Free speech does not kill... guns do.

People kill.

 

[Blues Man]

The States have had their turn firearms at control and, in the main, have not performed adequately.
The time has come to establish uniform firearms control throughout the entire Union at the Federal level, instead.

The time has come to admit that we can't solve every problem with government.

This one we can, if we ever decide to try in earnest --- hell, government is the only solution to this Wild West situation.

You know what else worked?

Enforcing the gun laws we already have

Virginia Project Exile

Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

 

[U2Edge]

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

Simply displaying a gun or pulling out a gun can get you reported. Several people who did not fire a shot were reported last week.

Bullshit! In my state, open carry has been the law for many years. Now, concealed carry is perfectly legal without a CCDW permit!

You'd piss yourself walking into a Walmart here! That is why no one shoots up a Walmart in this state! They don't like people shooting back!

What state do you live in?

Because of people like you, I live in the great state of confusion. How is it possible that someone so stupid can operate a computer?

I live in KY which recently passed Constitutional concealed carry. You could walk into a Walmart intending to shoot up the place and be outnumbered 300 to 1!

300 civilians with guns in a Walmart. What could go wrong? They all pull out their weapons when they hear the shots. They see someone else with a weapon and think its the mass shooter and shoot them. You could have a dozen of these cases with that many people. The mass shooter will still kill a few before he gets shot because he has the initiative. You'll still have over 20 people dead, half of them killed by the armed civilians thinking their target was the mass shooter.

 

[danielpalos]

Our State legislators have no excuse for not solving our State security problems.

 

[U2Edge]

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Shoot someone with an air rifle and all you will do is piss them off so that they shove that air rifle up your ass. With you, it would not meet much resistance as you have been playing wide receiver for years!

An Air Rifle can kill a person. So can a shotgun.

Really? Where do you shoot someone with an air rifle to kill them?

Apparently you don't know anything about air rifles either.

The head, the heart. A good shot can kill a Pig instantly. Human skull and flesh won't offer up much more protection. Lewis and Clark used an Air Rifle on their expedition.

 

[U2Edge]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.

As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.

And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.

The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!

Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?

 

[U2Edge]

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

Wrong.
Individual rights are not up for popular vote.
The courts have already established that firearms ARE an individual right, in McDonald vs Chicago, to you can never implement any more gun control, like an assault weapons ban.
It would never hold up in court.
But you are also wrong about how many support gun rights.
It is NOT just 31%.
Many house holds that do not have firearms do so because they live in associations that do not allow it, they can't afford it yet, they are moving too much, etc.
The fact they do not all own firearms does not mean the majority do not support private firearm ownership.
Self defense is an individual right that no one can challenge.

No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter. You can still defend yourself with a shotgun or Air Rifle provided you pass the tests and background checks. There are ways you can defend yourself without a gun too.

The number supporting gun rights may be larger than 31%, but its clear a lot lower than it was in 1977 when 50% of households had a gun in the house. Gun ownership is on the decline when looking at households. Once it drops to 20%, gun control advocates will have strong clear majorities in order to implement the laws they want on guns. The same think happened with smoking in public.

The Founding fathers created the constitution, but also created a mechanism in which the constitution could be changed if you had enough votes. Anything in the constitution can be changed with enough votes. Everything can be redefined. That's why slavery was once the law of the land, it was legal, but for the past 150+ years its been illegal. Nothing is set In stone. Anything can be changed, removed or redefined if you have enough votes, or vote in Justices that interpret the law the way you want them to.

The Supreme Court already dealt with this....in Heller, Miller, Caetano, Friedman v Highland Park, MacDonald......

Gun ownership is not on the decline, in fact, Blacks and women are the biggest growth areas.

Again, 50% of US households had a gun in the house in 1977. In 2014 only 31% of households had a gun in the house. That's big drop and it continues to fall.

Motorcycle ownership is also declining.

The number people who smoke is declining.

Its a cultural phenomenon. The generation born after the year 2000 is the most anti-gun generation in history. The first ones are starting to enter adulthood. Once they get elected to positions of power, they will change the laws on guns in this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.

For no rational reason whatsoever.

 

[progressive hunter]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.

As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.

And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.

The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!

Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?

all you have to do is look whats happening in hong kong as we speak as to why a person needs such a weapon,,,


and why I want or need it is not subject to your feelings,,,

if you dont like it move to hong kong or some other place that fits your feelings...

 

[M14 Shooter]

300 civilians with guns in a Walmart. What could go wrong? They all pull out their weapons when they hear the shots.

Why do you -assume- this will happen?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!
Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?

News: 32 is not over 3 dozen.
Shotguns are more than able to kill 32 people in 11 minutes, and yet would would allow people own them.
So.. what's your problem?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We have laws you dickless turd: The Bill of Rights, and I have the right to bear arms without your punk ass infringing on it with your ****** ***** ass rules.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

If you read Heller, you’ll see it codifies current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

If you read McDonald, you’ll see it incorporates the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

Now with that in mind, reread both.

Oh, Please. Stop this nonsense. Heller V was only about a the right to own a Handgun in the confines of your Home. And it did say that DC had the right to require registration of both handgun and person as long as the ability to obtain those were within reason. It also said that the law that DC passed that required the handgun to disassembled or have a trigger guard was not constitutional. The Handgun could be "Serviceable". It didn't cover anything other than handguns. If did cover "Common" handguns, not outlandish ones. It didn't have a thing to do with the AR or any other long gun. Nor did it cover going outside of the home with your handgun. That is Heller V in a nutshell. You can read into all you want but it's pretty simple. That was what was presented to the Supreme Court and that is exactly what they ruled on. The Supreme Court only rules on what is placed in front of them. It doesn't expand.

McDonald V upheld the Due Process of the States being able to ban handguns. What it means is that any firearm can be banned or severely regulated by the state as long as it's done through due process. Due process meaning at the voting booths or at the legislative levels.

You are talking down to the one person that has been reporting Heller V and McDonald V correctly all along. Gunnutters will scream that both are either "Unconstitutional" or they will interpret them as different than they really are.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

Mapp v. Ohio – Fourth Amendment (search warrants, probable cause)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan – First Amendment (freedom of the press, defamation)

Gideon v. Wainwright – Sixth Amendment (“you have the right to an attorney if you can’t afford one”)

Miranda v. Arizona – Fifth Amendment (“you have the right to remain silent”)

And of course:

DC v. Heller – Second Amendment (individual right to possess a handgun, right to self-defense)

The Bill of Rights, its court cases, and its jurisprudence has played a significant role in the history of the United States.

All of which were already in the Constitution BEFORE the Bill of rights were penned. Again, I have heard findings being ruled "Unconstitutional" but not once have I ever heard of a ruling of "UnBillofrightable".