Universal background checks... really?

[Porter Rockwell]

Stevens is so ******* wrong on so many things, he had no business on the SCOTUS and now he is shooting off his commie mouth about shit he should not discuss. He's a hack.

Really wrong is ignoring well regulated and militia, and getting the meaning of bear arms wrong.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “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.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view. The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.

Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again

You're quoting a liberal that never read the Constitution???

 

[miketx]

Stevens is so ******* wrong on so many things, he had no business on the SCOTUS and now he is shooting off his commie mouth about shit he should not discuss. He's a hack.

Really wrong is ignoring well regulated and militia, and getting the meaning of bear arms wrong.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “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.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view. The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.

Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again

You support lies, who knew?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Really wrong is ignoring well regulated and militia, and getting the meaning of bear arms wrong.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

All the "collective right" bullshit is nothing more than an attempt by the commies to disarm Americans so they can have their revolution without resistance.

We should start shooting now.

Let's hear from Johnny Ramone:

 

[Brain357]

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

All the "collective right" bullshit is nothing more than an attempt by the commies to disarm Americans so they can have their revolution without resistance.

We should start shooting now.

Let's hear from Johnny Ramone:

It was a collective right for how long? Then a bad court decision. That bad court decision got bear arms all wrong,

 

[Brain357]

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

Gun lobby has created lots of fake quotes.

 

[miketx]

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

Gun lobby has created lots of fake quotes.

You're a liar like all traitors. You should be tried and sentenced.

 

[Brain357]

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

All the "collective right" bullshit is nothing more than an attempt by the commies to disarm Americans so they can have their revolution without resistance.

We should start shooting now.

Let's hear from Johnny Ramone:

It was a collective right for how long? Then a bad court decision. That bad court decision got bear arms all wrong,

Collective rights cannot be held independent of individual rights. Know why?

Commie: "The right is held by the people collectively."

Individual: "I am a person. Can I exercise the right?"

Commie: "No. Only the people can."

Individual: "So, then who gets to exercise the right."

Commie: "The people."

Individual: "I am a person, singular of people. Can I exercise the right."

Commie: "NO!!"





The collective right to eat food:

Individual: "Can I eat this food?"

Commie: "No. It belongs to the people."

Individual: "I am a person."

Commie: "But you are not the people."

Individual: "So, who gets to eat the food."

Commie: "The people."

Individual: "So, no one?"

Commie: "Only the people. Not you."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

Warren Burger was a ******* commie. He lied his ass off.

.

 

[miketx]

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

I'm hoping we have another revolutionary war because of shit stains like you. But I'm probably wrong because your not even an American.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

Gun lobby has created lots of fake quotes.

You're a liar like all traitors. You should be tried and sentenced.

And ******* exiled.

Seriously, get the **** out of my country.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

Not from the constitution.

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

Not at all. They have the right to regulate individual ownership of guns.

Then WHAT is the real purpose of the 2nd? What the **** did it actually do?

Can you even explain that?

.

It is the right for states to have a well regulated militia. That militia has the right to bear arms. Many would say that role is filled by the national guard.

Before the National Guard Act of 1916/17, you would be correct. But after that, the Guard was Nationalized and States no longer had State Guards. They were authorized to have State Defense Forces (SDF). Most states have decided not to have a SDF because they can also use the National Guard when they are not Federalized. The Feds have to pick up the tab for any and all National Guard Expenses including Training while the SDF is completely State Funded.

 

[2aguy]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail. Those people would be considered a risk to society and should not be released. Just because someone is out on bail and is forbidden by the court to possess a firearm, does not mean that person will not try to get a firearm.

You haven't thought this out very well, have you?

Further to the point, you seem to believe that you can prevent crime by prohibition.

.

Sure they are. The cop who shot the guy in the back then dropped a gun next to him was granted bail,

People accused of murder are given bail regularly.

I'm sure in your idiotic mind, you think you've made a point. Your irrational B.S. probably don't even convince you... but if it does, your employer (if anyone was stupid enough to hire you) might offer mental health services through your insurance.

Just pointing out that dangerous people are given bail all the time shit brains. That you can’t argue otherwise is rather delicious.

Here you go for another example:

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article210924474.html

The accused name is Serena Escamilla.
Serena Escamilla was given bail…then the bail was even reduced….and she is out on bond awaiting trial.

Judge reduces bond for woman accused of murder

You may remember Serena who was previously arrested numerous times….one of which was for this crime:

Southside major drug bust leads to five arrests

Here is SOME of the bounty from one of her previous arrests before greasing her mother…. She got bail for this too—which is why she was able to kill her mom—she was out on bail **** stain. As were her four other co-defendants (unless they were arrested again).

View attachment 281214

And this was in brick-red Texas….just like the cop was in brick red South Carolina.

I’m sure you’ll come back with some rationalization about this not really happening—just like the video of the guy buying a gun at a gun show no questions asked.

Aren’t you tired of being proven wrong?

Dangerous people get bond regularly. So again…should someone who is accused of murder and is awaiting trial be able to purchase, own, use firearms?

Unless you’re a total sociopath…the answer is no. And I bet you will take the opposite side of the argument.

I guess if you can identify what a sociopath is, then you must have experience. Your posts do show evidence of an individual with mental health issues, way above the pay grade of most of us to identify. I'm pretty sure you are projecting at this juncture, given the fact that no rational person has been swayed by your ignorance.

Do people break the law? Yes. Do corrupt judges put criminals onto the streets? Bet your ass. Do people buy firearms without a background check? Yes. Did they break the law? Probably the statutory law...caveats notwithstanding.

Now, your little video could be played all day long in the state of Georgia and it would mean NOTHING. I bought a new firearm from a retailer recently. I did NOT go through a background check. The transaction was perfectly legal. So, how did I avoid the background check?

In Georgia, they issue a Weapons License to qualified applicants. They are pretty hard to get. I got turned down my first time for an arrest that happened in 1976. I have no idea why the final disposition was not recorded. The case was dismissed the next day after my arrest by a judge when he was apprised of the facts. If you have the license, you've been "checked out."

Secondary to that, there is no constitutional jurisdiction for people to have to forfeit one constitutional Right in order to exercise another. So, I won't be doing any more background checks. If I had to build a firearm with a file and a drill, I'd do that before I'd submit to this idiotic forfeiture of Rights. I thank you and your insane posts that helped me research the fine points of the law a bit more clearly.

You point out the times when the system (especially judges) let murderers go, but that same POS would uphold a felony arrest for a misdemeanor crime if he had strong feelings about the issue. All of it has no bearing on the issue at hand. It points to weaknesses in our corrupt legal system.

No it underscores that constitutional rights have limits.

Background checks are a natural and logical extension of those limits.

I sponsor extending the limits to include barring all sales of firearms without background checks and prohibiting those households with mentally ill persons from having firearms without obtaining a waiver.

You guys interjecting race and of course hatred is fine. It just means I won the argument

No...they aren't. They are no different than demanding a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment protections in our Bill of Rights.....

You are a fascist...we get it...you don't have to sell it so hard...we know...

 

[2aguy]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

If a "criminal" is so dangerous so as not to be trusted with a firearm, what in the Hell are they doing roaming our streets?

If that individual has a penis, they might rape your wife or daughter. They might walk into a bar, get sloppy drunk and then get in a car only to drive a few miles before crashing and killing an innocent family.

If they are a mean S.O.B. they might poison the county water supply or drug your children with tainted Halloween candy. They might steal a truck and make it an assault vehicle. What in the Hell are you doing allowing those kinds of people back on the streets?

Well we have the fullest jails in the world so we have more locked up than anyone else.

Moron, it doesn't matter how temporarily full they are if democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of them over and over again, you doofus.

 

[2aguy]

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

All the "collective right" bullshit is nothing more than an attempt by the commies to disarm Americans so they can have their revolution without resistance.

We should start shooting now.

Let's hear from Johnny Ramone:

It was a collective right for how long? Then a bad court decision. That bad court decision got bear arms all wrong,

Moron, Heller went through gun laws from Britain to today and it was never a collective Right, you moron.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

I wonder if candycorn / Brainless ever thought about this. United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Story was nominated to the bench by the man who authored the Second Amendment. Now that's pretty authoritative.

Gun lobby has created lots of fake quotes.

That isn't a fake quote. Nice try. No cigar.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

Whatadumbass Burger was:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.