What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[kaz]

The fifth amendment says your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law.

That's ridiculous, it doesn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

It says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The right to keep and bear arms is neither life, liberty, nor property.

You seriously don't see government taking your gun as being a violation of your liberty and property?

And you didn't answer the question, where does the second say due process can't remove your right to guns? So people on parole can't have their gun rights Constitutionally restricted?

 

[alang1216]

I am especially curious as to why you think a law can be enacted that will prevent people from breaking another law.

exactly when did I ever say this?

You said you would "like to take steps to prevent criminals from breaking the law and obtaining guns."
It's illegal for felons to buy, own or possess firearms. How do you prevent them from doing so, if not enact another law?

Enforce the current laws and arrest them for carrying a gun when they have had their Constitutional rights restricted through due process of law and keep them in jail

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Would you take no steps to prevent terrorists from obtaining explosives and weapons and just hope that they can be stopped AFTER they have obtained them?

 

[alang1216]

ALL rights have limits.

Already refuted earlier in this thread.

I'll have to take your word for it, unless someone can point me in the right direction.

 

[kaz]

ALL rights have limits.

You're confusing rights with what is done with rights. For example, free speech. If you are sued for slander, it's not your speech that was limited, it was that you harmed someone, the harm is what's illegal.

Think of it this way. If you beat to death someone with a hammer, get convicted, and go to jail the rest of your life. No one was depriving you of the right to own a hammer. It's what you did with the hammer that's illegal, murder

 

[kaz]

I am especially curious as to why you think a law can be enacted that will prevent people from breaking another law.

exactly when did I ever say this?

You said you would "like to take steps to prevent criminals from breaking the law and obtaining guns."
It's illegal for felons to buy, own or possess firearms. How do you prevent them from doing so, if not enact another law?

Enforce the current laws and arrest them for carrying a gun when they have had their Constitutional rights restricted through due process of law and keep them in jail

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Would you take no steps to prevent terrorists from obtaining explosives and weapons and just hope that they can be stopped AFTER they have obtained them?

If you can prove with due process of law restricting guns from shooters or keeping explosives and weapons from terrorists before they attack, then I'm totally with you

 

[Little-Acorn]

You seriously don't see government taking your gun as being a violation of your liberty and property?

Point out where I said that.

And you didn't answer the question, where does the second say due process can't remove your right to guns?

(patiently)

It does not name exactly whom is forbidden to infringe the right. That means everybody is forbidden.

So people on parole can't have their gun rights Constitutionally restricted?

I answered this question several times already. Please try to keep up.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

“What should the end goal of our gun policy be?”

Wrong question.

Correct question: “What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"

Answer: strict scrutiny.

Rationale: the right of individuals to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense is fundamental, where regulations and restrictions must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored to address that interest, and applied in a comprehensive, consistent manner.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Background checks

The designation of felons, the mentally ill, and undocumented immigrants as prohibited persons.

The prohibition of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

Regulations concerning the commercial sales of firearms.

Prohibitions of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual and not in common use by the general public.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would not pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Purchase permits and registration requirements.

Licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry).

Prohibitions of firearms based on appearance, configuration, or functionality, such as banning AR and AK platform rifles, or other weapons in common use by the general public not determined to be dangerous or unusual.

Training requirements.

Bans, restrictions, and limitations on magazine capacity or types of magazines.

Ammunition bans.

Waiting periods.

Restrictions on the number of firearms that may be purchased during a given time period.

“What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"


Given the FACT that we are FREE PEOPLE and that NO AUTHORITY was ever granted to fedgov to regulate firearms then

the federal government must IMMEDIATELY ABOLISH:

1- The Gun Control Act of 1968
2-The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
3- The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
4- National Firearms Act (NFA) 26 USC 53

The purpose of those laws are to incite violence against WE THE PEOPLE and to provide pretexts to fedgov to persecute law abiding citizens.

BATF cocksuckers used the National Firearms Act - 26 USC 53 - to persecute, terrorize and incinerate the Davidians alive


Senator Schumer (D-TelAviv) concluded that incinerating the Davidians was lawful because they were not Jews.


.

“What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"


Given the FACT that we are FREE PEOPLE and that NO AUTHORITY was ever granted to fedgov to regulate firearms then

the federal government must IMMEDIATELY ABOLISH:

1- The Gun Control Act of 1968
2-The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
3- The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
4- National Firearms Act (NFA) 26 USC 53

The purpose of those laws are to incite violence against WE THE PEOPLE and to provide pretexts to fedgov to persecute law abiding citizens.

BATF cocksuckers used the National Firearms Act - 26 USC 53 - to persecute, terrorize and incinerate the Davidians alive.


.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act was found unconstitutional over 20 years ago in 1995. In US v. Lopez, C.J. Rehnquist wrote in the decision (5-4) that it was volitive of the Commerce Clause.

Regarding the purging of 26 USC 53, are you really suggesting that the "destructive devices" defined in § 5845 of that Chapter should be allowed open access for all without restrictions? Have you thought that through or do you just not give a shit?

 

[OldLady]

I want you to stay alive, too. Keep your guns until we figure out how to get other people to stop shooting them at people.

And therein summarizes the failure of liberal ideology. The belief that we can somehow "figure out" how to stop people from killing. How to prevent hunger. How to prevent homelessness. That we can build utopia.

My dear....after tens of thousands of years of mankind and it's history, I can tell you unequivocally that there will never come a day where we can figure out how to stop man from killing. Evil will always exist. Always. There will always be sociopaths. There will always be mental illness. And there will always be pure, unadulterated evil.

Anyone spending time trying to "figure out" how to stop man from killing is wasting more time than someone trying to capture a unicorn so they can ride it to the end of the rainbow to capture the leprechauns pot of gold.

Trying to create utopia is senseless. A wise person accepts the reality and then tries to figure out how best to survive and thrive under those realities. The best way to survive and thrive is to carry a gun.

Keep your gun. You aren't an idealist; I am. There is room for both our views in this world.

I don't think it's taking a trip to fairy land to try and understand the American problem of mass shootings and lots of shootings. More people in this country choose to kill their fellow citizens than do in other countries. We are all human beings, no matter where we come from, so I think it's reasonable to investigate why it is that American humans feel the need to kill each other more than, say, British humans.

I realize evil and mental illness and sociopaths will always exist. I believe we need to continue to strive to do better, though. We Americans no longer grab our woman by the hair and drag her into the cave. We no longer hang, draw and quarter poachers. We no longer burn neighbors as witches or put women in jail for adultery. Society can improve itself, but only as long as we continue to strive to do better.

Striving for utopia is only silly if you believe you will someday attain it. Striving to achieve a society that kills less of its own seems practical enough to me.

 

[OldLady]

I want you to stay alive, too. Keep your guns until we figure out how to get other people to stop shooting them at people.

By the way - you do realize why these ISIS and Al Qaeda idiots don't come over to the U.S. and open fire on people with full automatic military weapons like they've done in France on multiple occasions now and other nations, don't you? It's because they are scared shitless of us. And no - it's not liberal political correctness that scares them. It's the fact that tens of millions of American's are fully armed. Even though they hate us more, they'd rather shoot Europeans where they can kill hundreds while the unarmed sheep are waiting for help to arrive.

So I've heard. Maybe we've just done a good job of national security.

 

[kaz]

You seriously don't see government taking your gun as being a violation of your liberty and property?

Point out where I said that.

Sure

The fifth amendment says your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law.

That's ridiculous, it doesn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

It says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

And you didn't answer the question, where does the second say due process can't remove your right to guns?

(patiently)

It does not name exactly whom is forbidden to infringe the right. That means everybody is forbidden

Without due process of law, they can't be infringed, just like any other right.

So people on parole can't have their gun rights Constitutionally restricted?

I answered this question several times already. Please try to keep up.

Just to be clear, if you ask me a question I feel I answered already somewhere, I can just tell you to find the answer, that's your standard?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act was found unconstitutional over 20 years ago in 1995. In US v. Lopez, C.J. Rehnquist wrote in the decision (5-4) that it was volitive of the Commerce Clause.

He said nothing of the kind. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He said that the banning of guns within 1000 feet of a school zone was so far distant from the Commerce Clause, that the CC could not be used to justify it.

Where do you get this stuff?

In fact, Rehnquist all but laughed the gun-grabbers' lawyers out of the court, pointing out that their arguments were completely ridiculous.

What he didn't point out (but is true nonetheless), was that when the 2nd amendment was ratified, it modified the Commerce Clause, removing any authority Congress may have had to regulate firearms in interstate commerce.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The liberal gun-rights-haters have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police first go door to door confiscating every firearm, and then continue to regularly invade and search every house as time goes on, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

 

[OldLady]

The liberal gun-rights-haters have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police first go door to door confiscating every firearm, and then continue to regularly invade and search every house as time goes on, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

France and England don't have 100% bans on guns.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act was found unconstitutional over 20 years ago in 1995. In US v. Lopez, C.J. Rehnquist wrote in the decision (5-4) that it was volitive of the Commerce Clause.

He said nothing of the kind. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He said that the banning of guns within 1000 feet of a school zone was so far distant from the Commerce Clause, that the CC could not be used to justify it.

Where do you get this stuff?

In fact, Rehnquist all but laughed the gun-grabbers' lawyers out of the court, pointing out that their arguments were completely ridiculous.

What he didn't point out (but is true nonetheless), was that when the 2nd amendment was ratified, it modified the Commerce Clause, removing any authority Congress may have had to regulate firearms in interstate commerce.

You ignorant ****! Did the statute comply with the boundaries established for interstate commerce by law and precedent? NO it didn't you ignorant ****! If it didn't then the statute was volitive of same. You can split that hair as thin as you want, but all you're doing is saying the same damn thing, FOOL!

I got this "stuff" directly from the case file you dumb ****! This is from the Syllabus;

"Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined."
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Your last statement is absolute horseshit! And I note you supplied only your OPINION with no substantiation to back your claim that somehow Amendment II magically amended the Commerce Clause. Do you have a permit for spreading so much equine fecal!

 

[Little-Acorn]

The liberal gun-rights-haters have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police first go door to door confiscating every firearm, and then continue to regularly invade and search every house as time goes on, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

France and England don't have 100% bans on guns.

Who mentioned France?

England has about 95% bans on handguns, and about 80% on rifles larger than .22 (popgun).

The fact remains that only complete (or near-complete as in England) bans have had any impact on crime rates... while still making law-abiding citizens MORE vulnerable to criminals who get guns anyway. Lesser measures merely INCREASE the chances of law-abiding people becoming victims.

And gun-rights-hating politicians in this country know it.

So why do they keep trying to put these measure on the books?

They are merely stepping stones, to total bans. No other explanation makes sense.

And the politicians know that, too.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You ignorant ****! you ignorant ****! FOOL! you dumb ****! absolute horseshit! equine fecal!

When people do that much namecalling and cursing, it's obvious they've lost. (yawn)

 

[OldLady]

Well, have hope. Heard last night there was a mass arrest of 120 gang members in the Bronx. A lot of work went in to getting that many search warrants and arrest warrants. Gangs fuel a lot of our gun death numbers. Focus on the criminals and getting the guns from them, is certainly a very good start.

 

[P@triot]

I want you to stay alive, too. Keep your guns until we figure out how to get other people to stop shooting them at people.

And therein summarizes the failure of liberal ideology. The belief that we can somehow "figure out" how to stop people from killing. How to prevent hunger. How to prevent homelessness. That we can build utopia.

My dear....after tens of thousands of years of mankind and it's history, I can tell you unequivocally that there will never come a day where we can figure out how to stop man from killing. Evil will always exist. Always. There will always be sociopaths. There will always be mental illness. And there will always be pure, unadulterated evil.

Anyone spending time trying to "figure out" how to stop man from killing is wasting more time than someone trying to capture a unicorn so they can ride it to the end of the rainbow to capture the leprechauns pot of gold.

Trying to create utopia is senseless. A wise person accepts the reality and then tries to figure out how best to survive and thrive under those realities. The best way to survive and thrive is to carry a gun.

Keep your gun. You aren't an idealist; I am. There is room for both our views in this world.

I don't think it's taking a trip to fairy land to try and understand the American problem of mass shootings and lots of shootings. More people in this country choose to kill their fellow citizens than do in other countries. We are all human beings, no matter where we come from, so I think it's reasonable to investigate why it is that American humans feel the need to kill each other more than, say, British humans.

I realize evil and mental illness and sociopaths will always exist. I believe we need to continue to strive to do better, though. We Americans no longer grab our woman by the hair and drag her into the cave. We no longer hang, draw and quarter poachers. We no longer burn neighbors as witches or put women in jail for adultery. Society can improve itself, but only as long as we continue to strive to do better.

Striving for utopia is only silly if you believe you will someday attain it. Striving to achieve a society that kills less of its own seems practical enough to me.

Well I agree with you there! However, the mass shooting thing has been solved for decades.

Where do mass shootings occur? Public schools (were guns are banned). Universities (where guns are banned). Government buildings (where guns are banned).

Were do mass shootings not occur? Police stations (where people are armed to the teeth). NRA meetings (where people are armed to the teeth). Secret Service headquarters (where people are armed to the teeth).

Conclusion: where guns are banned, mass shootings ensue. Where guns are prevalent, peace and tranquility reign.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You ignorant ****! you ignorant ****! FOOL! you dumb ****! absolute horseshit! equine fecal!

When people do that much namecalling and cursing, it's obvious they've lost. (yawn)

And I note, you supercilious ass, that you make that statement, but again avoid substantiation, you ******* COWARD! Game, Set, Match shit for brains!

 

[jon_berzerk]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

you should be a second amendment supporter

you are a first amendment supporter as well correct

I am. I'm one of the frustrated people who believes the Second discusses the need to keep a somewhat ready militia. If I've got my history right, there was no standing army and the people brought their own weapons if military action was called for. But like I said before, whatever the Second Amendment means, I will let others figure out the 'control' part. I'm going to focus on the people part.

it is clear and the courts have stated it the 2nd amendment is an individual right