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.
Liberals always, after any reported deaths involving firearms, are quick to shout for banning of guns, ammunition, and restrict the rights of those who have not committed any crime.
The analogy would be advocating the banning of all automobiles, as drunk drivers kill 27 people per day. Forget the fact that the vast majority of drivers do not kill anyone- we must ban all automobiles to prevent drunk drivers from killing people.
Not a liberal but here it is:
Intent probably. Person who uses a firearms intends to kill. Person driving a vehicle most likely did not intend to kill.(although there have been exceptions) Same as in deaths by knife,cudgel vs swimming pool, high voltage.
Boy you really just want to stretch don't you? When someone says gun in this conversation I promise you they don't mean a staple gun.
You can play your word gymnastics all you want. You know what we mean when we say gun, you're just intentionally hard headed. It's cool though.
No, I just DON'T LIKE people using broad brushes in an attempt make a point.
MOST of them have very LITTLE knowledge about the subject they are commenting on therefore I will NOT let them make false statements in an ATTEMPT to sway others opinions.
"Guns are ONLY made to kill" is a false statement and they MADE IT TO MAKE STATEMENT, and I will NOT let it go unchallenged.
Why not worry about things that really matter.....now, all deaths matter, but it appears that how you die is what really matters, even though what causes not as much death, people seem to hate more, rather than what cause more death....why?
Not clear enough? No people= no death. No man caused problems ever again.
Liberals always, after any reported deaths involving firearms, are quick to shout for banning of guns, ammunition, and restrict the rights of those who have not committed any crime.
The analogy would be advocating the banning of all automobiles, as drunk drivers kill 27 people per day. Forget the fact that the vast majority of drivers do not kill anyone- we must ban all automobiles to prevent drunk drivers from killing people.
Liberals always, after any reported deaths involving firearms, are quick to shout for banning of guns, ammunition, and restrict the rights of those who have not committed any crime.
The analogy would be advocating the banning of all automobiles, as drunk drivers kill 27 people per day. Forget the fact that the vast majority of drivers do not kill anyone- we must ban all automobiles to prevent drunk drivers from killing people.
Okay. Not specifically for you, but for anyone who might be reading this and thinking that you might be right, the Constitution is changed by one of two methods. The first is the process of Constitutional amendment, where the proposed change must first be passed by 2/3 of both the Senate and House of Representatives. It then goes to the States, and must be approved by 3/4 of the States.
The second method of changing the Constitution has never been used, and that's the process of convening a Constitutional Convention by 2/3 of the state legislatures.
That's changing the Constitution. And that was NOT what I was talking about.
Please read the following slowly, so it may one day sink in deep enough to be retained.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. It is the final arbiter of the law. It determines which laws are Constitutional, and which are not.
When the Supreme Court rules on a Constitutional matter - as it did in Heller - that decision is final, and can only be changed by a future Supreme Court decision or through the process of Constitutional Amendment.
Here is the full text of the part of the Heller decision related specifically to limits placed on the Second Amendment. And remember that this is the law of the land.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
The more recent McDonald v.Chicago ruling, nullified all that in which all gun legislation is based upon.
The Court ruled that the Second Amendment, like most other protections in the Bill of Rights, applies to the states by way of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Miller was based that the US courts couldn't nullify state legislation on gun control(to limit the freemen from getting guns).
Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court's incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights "because it is both long established and narrowly limited." This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it. - Justice Scalia
What I care about most others don't because I don't look at other people to see what they are about I just look inside of myself.
Why? Why you do something determines the correctness or incorrectness of it.
Drunk driving implies carelessness, not intent to cause harm. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger caries the intent to cause harm, justified or not.
What really matters to me may not concern you at all.
Quote:
Someone says, I want control. So if I take your guns away you can't resist my wishes. So death by gun is bad and needs to be stopped. Why? so you can't stop me from imposing my will on you.
That is part of why.
Last edited by ContrarianEcon; 08-15-2016 at 04:10 PM..
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.
