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.
Looks like the liberals are pretending, for the umpteenth time, that there can be exceptions to the 2nd amendment's flat ban on government taking away or restricting people's guns.
I listed in the OP the only way they can do that: By Jury Nullification on a case by case basis.
A cop could jimmy the lock on my door right now, walk in, cuff me, and then break open my gun safe and take my gun. Today, even as I type this. And my only recourse is to sue him, and maybe sue the city for violating my 2nd amendment rights. And a jury would find the cops (and city govt) guilty, and punish them in various severe ways.
UNLESS they could show that I had habitually threatened people with my gun, regularly tortured and killed animals, posted on potatobook that I wanted to kill everybody, shoot up a school someplace etc., and the cops had received numerous complaints that I had acted dangerously etc. etc.
Then the jury might say, "Well, the 2nd amendment is still a ironclad command that govt can't take his gun away, no exceptions. However, we the jury decide that in this case the cops should be able to take them anyway since this guy is an obvious whacko who is a clear danger to people around him, so we will find the cop and the city Not Guilty."
That's the ONY way government can take my gun away.
The jury might say that because I've made dozens of scary threats. Or because I just murdered someone. Or etc. The 2nd says the govt cannot take my gun away, and doesn't even make exceptions for those things.
But a jury can invalidate the 2nd amendment, on a case-by-case basis. And no one else can.
A cop could have walked into Nikolas Cruz's house and take his guns after seeing the dozens of threats, complaints, etc. about his being a danger to others.
And if/when Cruz sued him for violating his second amendment rights, no jury in the country (who was correctly briefed on the legality and effectiveness of Jury Nullification) would have ruled him guilty. They would let the cop walk, for good and just reasons, as they should.
And if the cop had gotten a judge to give him a warrant to take Cruz's guns, the judge might have been on the docket with him... and the jury would let both walk, for the same good reasons.
I'm sure someone has said this already, but if you really think you and your e-peen AR-15 can defend yourself against the US Govt, you're just ignorant. They will bomb you via drone strike while you're fellating that stupid gun.
Why did the Framers write and ratify an amendment forbidding all govts from restricting people's guns and other weapons?
They wanted a well regulated militia. Militia is the people, and well regulated means well functioning, meaning there has to be qualification requirements and training. It is obvious they didn't just want to hand out guns and hope for the best.
I'm sure someone has said this already, but if you really think you and your e-peen AR-15 can defend yourself against the US Govt, you're just ignorant. They will bomb you via drone strike while you're fellating that stupid gun.
Then you should fear the US Military, because if it came to it, your neighbor, coworker, guy sitting next to you in a restaurant will be targeted by a drone or 500lb JDAM.
Or of course anyone with any sense in their head knows that the US Military could never use bombs or drones or even tanks in the US, because the risk of collateral damage us too high, unless it was so desperate, the Gov is prepared to accept 100-1 civilian to rebel/revolutionary casualties. That said you can go back to fantasizing about gun owners slaughtered wholesale, because you're clearly a guy who values human life... oh... wait...
They wanted a well regulated militia. Militia is the people, and well regulated means well functioning, meaning there has to be qualification requirements and training. It is obvious they didn't just want to hand out guns and hope for the best.
I'm sure someone has said this already, but if you really think you and your e-peen AR-15 can defend yourself against the US Govt, you're just ignorant. They will bomb you via drone strike while you're fellating that stupid gun.
What the heck is an 'e-peen AR-15.' If the US Govt is so all-powerful, why are we still fighting in Afghanistan 15 years later?
All of us want mass shootings to stop. However we have different approaches on figuring out how.
Or even if it is possible, without massively giving government dangerous amounts of power to disarm us and violating the rights of every law-abiding citizen in the country.
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.
