Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If by "instigating the fight," you mean discussing/debating gun-control without agreeing that doing so is anti-2A, then you are not getting through to me. If at the same time you want to suggest I am a "subversive," then you have a funny way of getting through to people...
The rest seems a bit like bluster to me. You called it, and I could not have put it more perfectly.
I think you are beginning to understand what you are up against.
Back ground checks have not prevented a single massacre.
Back ground checks have not prevented a single murder.
You simply cannot know whether or not this is the case, and you significantly damage your credibility when you emphatically assert that it is true. You can interview various people who have been arrested for murder to gain some insights into whether or not gun laws had any affect on them, but you can't interview all of the people who didn't commit murder to see if gun laws played any role in stopping them from killing. Also, if 80,000 felons applied for guns but failed a background check, then it seems likely that some of them "cooled off" or "rethought their situation" in the meantime and ended up not committing a crime that they might otherwise have committed. Since these folks are felons (which is why they failed the background check in the first place), the odds are probably not good. Most of the 80,000 probably found other ways to get guns. But many a few hundred of these folks did not go on to get guns, and thus some crimes may have been prevented. So to claim with confidence that background checks have "not prevented a single murder" is absurd.
Of course, these 80,000 could have/should have been arrested on the spot, which would almost certainly have prevented some crimes, but perhaps with some new efforts to enforce the laws, more repeat offenders will be taken off the streets before they can do more harm. This is why I support Obama's efforts to enforce gun laws more effectively. Your claims about criminals simply making their own guns is disheartening, but it still makes sense to do what we can to prevent the selling of guns to felons.
You simply cannot know whether or not this is the case, and you significantly damage your credibility when you emphatically assert that it is true.
If I want you dead... You're gonna die.
Back ground checks have not prevented a single massacre.
Back ground checks have not prevented a single murder.
I'm always a little reluctant to pretend anyone here, including me, is qualified to debate constitutional law, let alone make rulings regardless of what precedent has been established by the very same legal system set up by our Constitution, but I have to admit I find the exercise interesting. So...
I am also always with a little smile on my face when I read what was on the minds of our founding fathers back then unlike the issues we face today, for example the regulation of commerce with the Indian Tribes.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
But what of the arguments that have been brought to the courts at all levels having to do with regulation of products like drugs, petroleum, tobacco and all the rest. Is the argument here that even all the legal experts past and present all got it wrong while C-D commentators know better? That's not a real confidence builder for me, especially as I have seen first hand some of the logic presented by some folks in these threads that truly defies the imagination.
Aside from all that, I wonder if maybe it is appropriate to also consider the "necessary and proper" clause, because..., well it is also there to consider, and in light of what most reasonable people view as a necessity when it comes to some of these products and the need for regulation, I find it hard to believe our founding fathers would leave us without that ability.
Maybe over my head and above my pay grade, but I am more inclined to think the "necessary and proper" clause serves us here enough to prevent us from needing a new amendment that addresses the clear necessity to regulate products and services in our modern-day economy/society.
The entire clause reads
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You simply cannot know whether or not this is the case, and you significantly damage your credibility when you emphatically assert that it is true. You can interview various people who have been arrested for murder to gain some insights into whether or not gun laws had any affect on them, but you can't interview all of the people who didn't commit murder to see if gun laws played any role in stopping them from killing. Also, if 80,000 felons applied for guns but failed a background check, then it seems likely that some of them "cooled off" or "rethought their situation" in the meantime and ended up not committing a crime that they might otherwise have committed. Since these folks are felons (which is why they failed the background check in the first place), the odds are probably not good. Most of the 80,000 probably found other ways to get guns. But many a few hundred of these folks did not go on to get guns, and thus some crimes may have been prevented. So to claim with confidence that background checks have "not prevented a single murder" is absurd.
Of course, these 80,000 could have/should have been arrested on the spot, which would almost certainly have prevented some crimes, but perhaps with some new efforts to enforce the laws, more repeat offenders will be taken off the streets before they can do more harm. This is why I support Obama's efforts to enforce gun laws more effectively. Your claims about criminals simply making their own guns is disheartening, but it still makes sense to do what we can to prevent the selling of guns to felons.
While I agree with your first statement, it is still an infringement. If the courts deem you free enough to walk the streets with people who have committed no crime, then you should have all the rights and privileges of them. But the law says "you are free enough to wall among us but you can't have a gun or you might go back to your life of crime" then don't let them loose.
He has had 7 years to enforce gun laws but he did not. For a while he had both houses of Congress as well. Why didn't he force gun laws on us like hid did health insurance? Maybe he and the rest of Congress enjoy the power more then they like sticking to their principles.
... But the law says "you are free enough to wall among us but you can't have a gun or you might go back to your life of crime" then don't let them loose.
Personally, I think that violent crimes - especially a second violent offense - should always result in a life sentence upon conviction, with the idea that you might never get released, or, even if you get parole, you never really regain the right to carry guns. I am, however, a liberal at heart, so I think that more effort should go into rehabilitation, rather than just wasting time in prison. If good evidence suggests that rehabilitation has succeeded, then parole should be possible, but the life sentence should still hold, in the sense that you still wouldn't have the right to have guns, and you could be required to undergo certain types of inspections that would not be allowable for free citizens. Maybe someday, if statistics prove that rehabilitation works, we could reconsider the right for felons to carry guns, but right now it is clear that rehabilitation rarely works, so letting felons back on the streets and letting them carry guns is not very smart.
Quote:
He has had 7 years to enforce gun laws but he did not. For a while he had both houses of Congress as well. Why didn't he force gun laws on us like hid did health insurance? Maybe he and the rest of Congress enjoy the power more then they like sticking to their principles.
I agree completely. It seems to me that Obama totally blew it on this (and on a few other things as well). But the fact that he blew opportunities in the past does not imply that he should make no effort now. He's got a year left, and there is a reasonably good chance that a liberal Dem will be elected after him, so I'm glad he is getting the ball rolling now, even though he should have done it sooner.
Personally, I think that violent crimes - especially a second violent offense - should always result in a life sentence upon conviction, with the idea that you might never get released, or, even if you get parole, you never really regain the right to carry guns.
A better solution, that lowers the tax payer burden of housing and feeding evil.
Public hanging.... The Gallows.
Let the entire public see what happens to you, if you want to be violent or steal.
I can well understand how gun enthusiasts hang on so tightly to this "absolute" version of what the 2A provides, but again..., I am a person and I can bear arms in this country, therefore my right is being honored and provided for. This is the actual absolute truth that cannot be denied.
That the 2A provides I can buy ANY gun made by man as opposed to providing me the right to bear arms in general can be argued forever "until the cows come home," as it has been argued and decided upon by our SCOTUS more than once. This too is "absolute" truth.
Clearly, one man's "absolute" truth or understanding is not necessarily the same as the next or even the same as most or the same as the SCOTUS, so argue away as you will, but let us not confuse "absolute" truth with what is not, or let us at least try...
I have to ask for clarification.
I'll make it easy, for a yes or no answer.
Are "criminals" and or the "mental ill", classified as people?
How can this be a trick question, unless you want it to be.
I have to ask for clarification.
I'll make it easy, for a yes or no answer.
Are "criminals" and or the "mental ill", classified as people?
This was already asked and answered many pages ago. I'm not sure what good you see in asking it again. The obvious answer is "yes". But children are people too. Are you saying that a 6-year-old has the constitutional right to carry a loaded weapon on the street?
This was already asked and answered many pages ago. I'm not sure what good you see in asking it again. The obvious answer is "yes". But children are people too. Are you saying that a 6-year-old has the constitutional right to carry a loaded weapon on the street?
Learn Me, wanted to beat around the bush. Never answering it.
We the People, are telling you the government.
The right of the people, to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Guess who it is trying to disarm the people, by limiting their rights?
The only way they are not absolute, is when anyone can deny you your rights with threats of violence.
That is the whole reason we have a right to defend our liberty, by any means possible.
It does not matter if you agree or not. My freedom is not yours to take without a fight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
