Why was the second amendment written?

[Rye Catcher]

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.

 

[westwall]

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States.

The fact that your arguments revolve around semantics, and prior illegal government actions proves you have nothing.

 

[Rye Catcher]

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

"Gun control advocates want to ban firearms" is not true. There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.

 

[westwall]

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

"Gun control advocates want to ban firearms" is not true. There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.

That is a bald faced lie. There are dozens of videos of high ranking dems outright calling for bans. Shit at least two of the presidential candidates ran on it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.

I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.) So, let me refute what you've just said:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Now, let's get specific to gun control:

According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“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, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

The EARLIEST court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position. It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions. That is contrary to the Rule of Law. Imagine today that you think you're law abiding. A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled. So, you think you're obeying the law? No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of reversing their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution. George Washington warned against the practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795

You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe. YOU have the problem with logic. For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

"Gun control advocates want to ban firearms" is not true. There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.

The liberals who want to ban firearms claim that they only want "reasonable restrictions." So, we banned the future manufacture of full auto weapons to civilians. Gun banners weren't happy. They outlawed the importation of foreign semi automatics because the AK became the flavor of the day. Gun banners still were not happy. They passed the so - called "Assault Weapons Ban" and it did NOT work, so that law expired despite bipartisan support with Bush vowing to sign it into permanent law. It didn't work, so Gun banners weren't happy. They passed the Lautenberg Amendment. Gun banners were still bitching. Then we passed the Brady Bill and the background check... Gun banners are still not happy.

In my years on this earth there have been 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city rules, regulations, laws, statutes, ordinances, Executive Orders, case rulings, mandates, edicts, policies, etc. passed and Gun banners are still bitching.

People on this thread want to repeal the Right; make it a privilege; they want to gut the Fourth Amendment; they want to dictate to me what they think is appropriate to defend my life with (as the courts have ruled that my personal protection is MY responsibility, not theirs.)

Please quit trying to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.

 

[Rye Catcher]

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

"Gun control advocates want to ban firearms" is not true. There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.

The liberals who want to ban firearms claim that they only want "reasonable restrictions." So, we banned the future manufacture of full auto weapons to civilians. Gun banners weren't happy. They outlawed the importation of foreign semi automatics because the AK became the flavor of the day. Gun banners still were not happy. They passed the so - called "Assault Weapons Ban" and it did NOT work, so that law expired despite bipartisan support with Bush vowing to sign it into permanent law. It didn't work, so Gun banners weren't happy. They passed the Lautenberg Amendment. Gun banners were still bitching. Then we passed the Brady Bill and the background check... Gun banners are still not happy.

In my years on this earth there have been 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city rules, regulations, laws, statutes, ordinances, Executive Orders, case rulings, mandates, edicts, policies, etc. passed and Gun banners are still bitching.

People on this thread want to repeal the Right; make it a privilege; they want to gut the Fourth Amendment; they want to dictate to me what they think is appropriate to defend my life with (as the courts have ruled that my personal protection is MY responsibility, not theirs.)

Please quit trying to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.

We don't live in the 18th Century, we live in a period when mass murders of innocent human beings have become common place; face the fact that firearms are the favorite weapon of domestic terrorists. Your obsessions with guns is noted, as is your arrogant rhetoric which is not impressive nor is it logical.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

"Gun control advocates want to ban firearms" is not true. There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.

The liberals who want to ban firearms claim that they only want "reasonable restrictions." So, we banned the future manufacture of full auto weapons to civilians. Gun banners weren't happy. They outlawed the importation of foreign semi automatics because the AK became the flavor of the day. Gun banners still were not happy. They passed the so - called "Assault Weapons Ban" and it did NOT work, so that law expired despite bipartisan support with Bush vowing to sign it into permanent law. It didn't work, so Gun banners weren't happy. They passed the Lautenberg Amendment. Gun banners were still bitching. Then we passed the Brady Bill and the background check... Gun banners are still not happy.

In my years on this earth there have been 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city rules, regulations, laws, statutes, ordinances, Executive Orders, case rulings, mandates, edicts, policies, etc. passed and Gun banners are still bitching.

People on this thread want to repeal the Right; make it a privilege; they want to gut the Fourth Amendment; they want to dictate to me what they think is appropriate to defend my life with (as the courts have ruled that my personal protection is MY responsibility, not theirs.)

Please quit trying to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.

We don't live in the 18th Century, we live in a period when mass murders of innocent human beings have become common place; face the fact that firearms are the favorite weapon of domestic terrorists. Your obsessions with guns is noted, as is your arrogant rhetoric which is not impressive nor is it logical.

You are getting desperate now. You ran out of talking points and now want to have a personality contest. Save it.

"9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

I have a hard time suffering ignorance and then stupidity. All you've brought to the table are proposed solutions that were implemented and failed. Rather than to accept the facts, you now make this ridiculous argument (usually made by idiots) that I have some kind of obsession (sic) with guns. What I have an obsession with is Liberty. Being a student of history, I am reminded of what people who faced tyranny have said:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

I care about Freedom and Liberty. Governments are antithetical to both. Your hatred of firearms is what is illogical. We could implement a few simple measures and avoid most of the shootings in America. I'm going to put this in a simple perspective for you:

There are more firearms in America than there are people. Less than 1 percent will ever be used in a crime. When your ass is pushing up daisies, there will be firearms in America. People will be killing each other. And, instead of joining with me to decrease those deaths, you will rail against guns. It's because people like you don't give a shit about your fellow man; you have an irrational hatred of a tool - a tool that can save your life, protect your Freedoms and Liberties; help you to hunt for a meal in a SHTF scenario and serve as insurance policy against tyranny in government.

Accusing me of having an obsession with guns is dishonest, illogical, and a desperate attempt to insult me because you failed to put forth a workable plan to save lives. You exposed yourself. For you, it's not about saving lives; it's about control. You just gave all of us a sound reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms. Until now, we were having a conversation. Then you wanted to make it personal when it was proven your ideas won't work. We know what people like you would do if they had the power and the rest of us were in the minority.

God created man; Samuel Colt made them equal. Thank God for the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.

Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.

It's not up to me or you for that matter

The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they keep their control

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.

Delusional, hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.

 

[westwall]

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.

Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.

It's not up to me or you for that matter

The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they keep their control

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.

Delusional, hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.

Pseudo intellectual spews forth nonsense as usual...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.

Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.

It's not up to me or you for that matter

The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they keep their control

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.

Delusional, hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.

You sound like someone who is projecting.


"Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,' O’Rourke said in one of the biggest lines of the night." Beto ORourke

There was a LOT of applause the night he proclaimed that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

The US army was born in 1775 and has existed ever since; the power of Congress to raise, train and equip an army pre-dates the 2A.
So... not so much,

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.

This may be your opinion, but recognizey our opinion does not matter here.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them.

This may be your opinion, but recognizey our opinion does not matter here.

Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.

This may be your opinion, but recognize your opinion does not matter here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

To ensure the people have access to the means necessary to exercise their right to self-defense, individually and collectively.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations...

As you cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or the efficacy of, any of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding, there's no sense whatsoever to be found in them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We don't live in the 18th Century, we live in a period when mass murders of innocent human beings have become common place

1982-2019: 97 mass shootings, for an average of less than 3 per year -- this is your version of "commonplace"
How then would you describe the >80,000 defensing uses of a firearm per year?

face the fact that firearms are the favorite weapon of domestic terrorists.

Demonstrate this to be true - cite the 'domestic terrorist' attacks of the lat, say, 40 years and demonstrate the majority of them were committed with firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.

^^^^^
This is an outright lie.

 

[jameny5]

lagging behind 21st century tech.

I'm down with that...

Look at this picture: Hint: America's favorite thing - killing people, money, taxes and out right corporate greed. Sums this country up to a "T"... Ping!

 

[fncceo]

killing people, money, taxes and out right corporate greed.

Three out of four ain't bad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.

True.

And as long as those laws comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence, none of those law are un-Constitutional or ‘anti-gun.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).

I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?

If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.

There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.

You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.

How would you insure the security of a free state?

"Gun control advocates want to ban firearms" is not true. There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.

There is a tiny, irrelevant, feckless minority who might want to ‘ban’ guns – it’s idiotic to take them seriously, and a lie to claim they’re ‘representative’ of those who want to enact firearm regulatory measures that are perfectly warranted and Constitutional.