CDZ This is why I am now against the bump stock ban, we must fight the bump stock ban....

[JoeB131]

and i hope that you and your kids get exactly what you DESERVE in the USA JoeB .

What they deserve is a sensible social democracy like they have in Europe instead of the Corporate Plutocracy we have now.

 

[pismoe]

i do not think that you will get it , i hope not anyway [feck europe] JoeB .

 

[JoeB131]

i do not think that you will get it , i hope not anyway [feck europe] JoeB .

Actually, it will be inevitable, because people will demand it.

 

[pismoe]

i should say that i HOPE that you don't get it in MY or YOUR lifetime . And after MY lifetime , well , i probably don't care JoeB .

 

[Two Thumbs]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.

The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.

Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.

The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.

correct, it specified 'arms' not just guns.

 

[Two Thumbs]

every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.

The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.

Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.

The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.

And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........

You don't know what you are talking about.....

One Justice?

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

What exactly am I missing here? "Well regulated" seems pretty clear to me.
.

If you really want to know what you are missing, then refer to the federalist papers. The founders are quite clear that they felt the government should be "regulated" by the people and not the other way around.

And people are speaking up against the government in favor of increased gun control, tighter regulations and banning some weapons.

That's why we have the Constitution.

not matter how pissy you get, we all get to keep our rights.

 

[JoeB131]

That's why we have the Constitution.

not matter how pissy you get, we all get to keep our rights.

You totally have a right to have a militia in your state, but most states like having a National Guard instead.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because people use semi automatic weapons.....close to 600 million of them, to defend themselves 1,500,000 times a year against violent criminals that democrats keep letting out of jail, over and over again...

Okay, guy, you can pull all these fanciful numbers out... but an America without guns would be a good thing.

If you want to stop gun violence, or reduce it greatly, then you simply have to lock up violent gun criminals when you catch them.....but the democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail...where they go on and murder people.....

We lock up 2 million people, more than any other country in the world including Communist China which has four times as many people. If locking people up was an answer, we'd be there already.

OK Dory

We lock up more nonviolent offenders than violent offenders THAT is the problem

 

[Skull Pilot]

every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.

The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.

Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.

The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.

And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........

You don't know what you are talking about.....

One Justice?

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

What exactly am I missing here? "Well regulated" seems pretty clear to me.
.

He wrote the opinion for the majority in Heller.....5 justices decided, he wrote their opinion......read Heller, it explains why you don't know what you are talking about...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people,trained to arms”).

Let's run with that interpretation. Who is going to impose "proper discipline and training"? Who is to decide what is proper? And what prohibits certain types of guns from having different requirements?

Even that decision allows for interpretation.

Remain absolutist on this all you want, no skin off my nose. But all-or-nothing can result in nothing.
.

People can discipline themselves you know.

Just because you need the government to tell you what to do doesn't mean everyone does

 

[Skull Pilot]

AGREE and as i always say --- my Curse is upon these lefties and their kids as time progresses and they reap the rewards of their works . -------------------- USA was the best country in the world and lefties , dems want to change it for some Pie in the Sky !!

we were the best country in the world.

Then you knobs elected Reagan, and big corporations have been running roughshod over us ever since.

Riddle me this

If we are the best country in the world why do you insist that we be more like other countries since they are not the best in the world

 

[JoeB131]

We lock up more nonviolent offenders than violent offenders THAT is the problem

That's the point. Locking people up doesn't deter them. Because that day you are really angry with someone you aren't thinking about getting locked up.

 

[JoeB131]

Riddle me this

If we are the best country in the world why do you insist that we be more like other countries since they are not the best in the world

I don't think we are the best country in the world anymore. Go back and read what I wrote. we WERE the best country in the world. Then the Plutocrats won.

Now the plutocrats have realized that you gun fetishists are more trouble than you are worth...

 

[pismoe]

AGREE and as i always say --- my Curse is upon these lefties and their kids as time progresses and they reap the rewards of their works . -------------------- USA was the best country in the world and lefties , dems want to change it for some Pie in the Sky !!

we were the best country in the world.

Then you knobs elected Reagan, and big corporations have been running roughshod over us ever since.

Riddle me this

If we are the best country in the world why do you insist that we be more like other countries since they are not the best in the world

-------------------------------------------------------- [you talking to Pismoe] I don't want to change the USA . I would like a return to the time when the USA was full of Americans and when we WERE the best country in the world Skull Pilot.

 

[pismoe]

JoeB , is just crazy , he wants 15 dollars an hour squeezed out of fast food franchise owners and a country where the young can rob those with money and not be harmed by those with money defending themselves SkullPilot .

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB , is just crazy , he wants 15 dollars an hour squeezed out of fast food franchise owners and a country where the young can rob those with money and not be harmed by those with money defending themselves SkullPilot .

Uh, guy, keep going the way we are going, the Young might decide to just cut off your social security and say to heck with you all.

 

[pismoe]

JoeB , is just crazy , he wants 15 dollars an hour squeezed out of fast food franchise owners and a country where the young can rob those with money and not be harmed by those with money defending themselves SkullPilot .

Uh, guy, keep going the way we are going, the Young might decide to just cut off your social security and say to heck with you all.

---------------------------------------------- not worried about it , as i always say , I'm a healthy 68 year old but even at that . How long do healthy 68 year olds live ?? That being asked , if i were you i'd be worried about my young kids and Grandkids future rather than Pismoes future . Maybe these young 'pity party students' will finally get their wonderful pay raise to 15 dollars an hour [WOW] OldSchool .

 

[Skull Pilot]

Riddle me this

If we are the best country in the world why do you insist that we be more like other countries since they are not the best in the world

I don't think we are the best country in the world anymore. Go back and read what I wrote. we WERE the best country in the world. Then the Plutocrats won.

Now the plutocrats have realized that you gun fetishists are more trouble than you are worth...

Then move out. You'll be much happier elsewhere

 

[JoeB131]

not worried about it , as i always say , I'm a healthy 68 year old but even at that . How long do healthy 68 year olds live ?? That being asked , if i were you i'd be worried about my young kids and Grandkids future rather than Pismoes future . Maybe these young 'pity party students' will finally get their wonderful pay raise to 15 dollars an hour [WOW] OldSchool .

You mean they'd be able to make a living wage.

Now, here's the thing, we expect these kids to carry their own weight, and your weight too, after you retire. they aren't going to put you on an ice flow like the Eskimos did to their elderly.

They get there by going to school and developing skills. The low wage job your generation did has been replaced by machines now, so we need skills.

Now, when I went to college in the 1980's, the Minimum Wage was $3.35/Hr. Tuition at UIC ("Go Flames", said no one ever) was $450 a quarter, or about $1350 a year. Which means you could work a minimum wage job and get your tuition in 404 hours, or 8 hours a week. Pretty sweet.

Now, flash forward to today! Minimum wage has increased to $7.25/Hr., an increase of 116% over 35 years.

But tuition to UIC ("Go Flames", no one is saying, still!) 10,400 a year!

That's a 670% increase! Holy shit.

So to make that at minimum wage, you'd have to work 1434 hrs, or 27 hours a week. That's not including books, fees, transportation, and that pesky thing you need, oh, yeah... FOOD!

You see the problem here, bud. You whine about how these kids have no work ethic and how dare they ask for more, but they actually kind of have it rougher, don't they?

 

[JoeB131]

Then move out. You'll be much happier elsewhere

No, I'll be happy when we fix this one, preferably over the lamentations of the right wing that drove us into the ditch to start with.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then move out. You'll be much happier elsewhere

No, I'll be happy when we fix this one, preferably over the lamentations of the right wing that drove us into the ditch to start with.

You'll be dead a long time before you get your wish of armed government agents storming into houses to confiscate weapons