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.
Did you strain yourself jumping so far to a delusion, that I said you were mentally ill?
Never said you were or even to imply it.
It is you that is scared of the mentally ill, yet this bright idea to disarm yourself because they are a threat to you, is very intelligent.
Honestly, I think you're having some sort of reading comprehension or logic issue.
I never thought or implied that you said I was mentally ill. I CLARIFIED that I am not mentally ill because if I was seriously mentally ill, I do not believe I should be allowed to own a gun or ammunition, or have access to such. I mean, that is the topic we are discussing, right? Whether or not mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns or ammo- that's the topic. So I'm discussing the topic and clarifying that SINCE I'm not mentally ill, I am not in favor of my rights to gun ownership being taken away.
I have also informed you several times now that I'm not afraid of people who are seriously mentally ill. That being said, I do think they should be monitored pretty closely, preferably by friends and family and their doctor(s).
I still don't know where you're getting this strange idea that I am in favor of disarming myself. Why would I do such a thing? I am licensed to carry and I do carry.
Liberals aren't pretending anything. The Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment is _not_ absolute right for anyone to own guns.
"The Heller majority opinion did not, in the words of its author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, secure an “unlimited” right to buy or carry weapons. The Second Amendment would not, for example, scuttle bans on concealed weapons or machine guns. And Justice Scalia emphasised that nothing in Heller “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”. Nearly every gun regulation under discussion today—from expanded background checks to bans on military-style weapons—would seem to pass constitutional muster."
This nation, any state, any city could put a total ban on AR-15 or other assault rifles and it would be Constitutional. No jury nullification required.
Unless the scotus was packed with leftist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who despise the very document they are suppose to uphold, there is little chance semi-auto (i.e. non assault rifles)firearms will be restricted in a scotus ruling.
That is especially true if judges go by original intent of the very people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
Unless the scotus was packed with leftist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who despise the very document they are suppose to uphold, there is little chance semi-auto (i.e. non assault rifles)firearms will be restricted in a scotus ruling.
At least in the next few months.
Quote:
That is especially true if judges go by original intent of the very people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. But that's no more likely than what you said.
The 2nd amendment was writtten with no exceptions. Not for felons, not for mental illness, etc.
And why? So that if the cops take a gun away from any of those, he can sue them for violating his 2nd amendment rights, and HOPE the jury sees fit to say, "Your condition isn't enough to justify the cops taking your gun and violating your right to keep and bear arms. And so we find that you are innocent, and the cops must give you your gun back immediately."
What qualifies as a "mental health issue" and who decides? Also, do these same "violators" get to keep their steak knives, power drills, hedge clippers, and even their hands?
Yes, hands. You can strangle someone with them.
Id love to know what other rights will be restricted for those with mental health issues. Do they have their right to free speech and their right to vote revoked? I mean they can do dangerous things with those too, no?
Id love to know what other rights will be restricted for those with mental health issues. Do they have their right to free speech and their right to vote revoked? I mean they can do dangerous things with those too, no?
Especially since many people consider modern liberalism to be a mental disease. Should such people be prevented from voting?
The 2nd amendment was writtten with no exceptions. Not for felons, not for mental illness, etc.
And why? So that if the cops take a gun away from any of those, he can sue them for violating his 2nd amendment rights, and HOPE the jury sees fit to say, "Your condition isn't enough to justify the cops taking your gun and violating your right to keep and bear arms. And so we find that you are innocent, and the cops must give you your gun back immediately."
Which the jury might or might not say.
But a jury doesn't generally decide a person's legal fitness with respect to 2A rights.
It seems you're saying that in the case of having arms forcibly removed from you, only a jury should decide whether that move was justified. But by what basis should they decide that given the former part of your argument states the right is without exception?
I see what you're trying to get at here, but I don't think it's a rock solid way to argue it. A jury can decide a person's guilt for a felony, but in doing so, they aren't directly responsible for the ramifications of that decision (i.e. the deprivation of 2A rights). A jury might be asked to, for example, decide whether a person who wrote thousands of dollars worth of rubber checks (a felony in most states) is guilty of that crime, but not whether that guilt warrants the automatic forfeiture of that person's 2A rights. So even though a reasonable person would maybe agree that check kiting isn't a violent crime and the person convicted of that act shouldn't be barred from owning arms, that option is never on the table for the jury in the first place.
And in the case of being "adjudicated mentally defective" (or whatever it says), unless I'm mistaken, those aren't the sort of cases put before a jury at all.
A jury is the last "court" of appeal. And they are NOT part of "government". They're only called together by government, but they take no further orders from govt regarding the case they are judging. They are you and me, who are free to use their own judgement about whether the accused should be found Guilty or Not Guilty. And they have the power to say "The law should not apply in this case as the prosecution is trying to do".
If a cop took away a mass murderer's gun at the scene of his crime, and the murderer later sues for violation of his 2nd amendment rights, the jury is entirely within their rights and powers to decide that the cop was justified in taking the gun away this time DESPITE the ironclad words in the Highest Law of the Land (U.S. Constitution).
The jury is you and your peers. The ones who ultimately decide how the country will be run.
What's the only way a citizen can have his guns taken away or restricted?
Their death.
Rights don't come from people that can take them. Those people can only kill you because you have that right.
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.
