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.
Yes. ALL STATE gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and ILLEGAL. Firearms are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. The states gave up their right to regulate guns when they became states! That's the problem!
The very first challenge to the 2nd amendment was about states having the right to limit arms.
To keep black people from obtaining weapons.
The second challenge, was so states could deny black people their right to militia.
Both upheld by the Supreme Court and states denied human rights.
That stood and what ALL GUN LEGISLATION IS BASED UPON, as precedence, until McDonald v. Chicago. When it was finally overturned.
All gun legislation based upon an overturned law, that was found to be unconstitutional.
Yes, McDonald v. Chicago, defacto overturned ALL GUN LAWS.
Rendering all gun legislation unconstitutional, including the 1934 Firearms Act.
If we cant protect nuclear secrets or the personal information of FBI agents and, government employees, and veterans, what makes you think this list wouldn't fall to the same fate? Its a horrible idea, plus it flies in the face of being able to enjoy those rights afforded by the 2nd. Im not one who believes a confiscation would happen, but boy wouldn't your list make that REALLY easy?
So you think your average burglar is going to hack the government just to find out if you have a gun? You think China will? Seems like a low-priority list for serious hackers. Also, though, isn't all that information already out there? When someone buys a gun, there is a record, right?
If you don't believe a confiscation would happen, why would such a list make it easier? Do you believe that the government will turn tyrannical? If so, do you really believe that a bunch of gun owners would stand a chance against said nukes, tanks, millions of far better-trained soldiers, etc? I don't.
You guys always forget to quote the whole thing. Why is that?
Because the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T say:
"the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The uninfringable Right belongs to "the people."
Quote:
You are also making a false equivalency, I assume to fearmonger, that this is about banning all guns. Of course people would have a problem with removing the 1st Amendment, something which, by the way, government cannot unilaterally do. Of course people would be upset and be in the streets. But similarly, there is very little actual support for ending the 2nd, even among liberals, many of which are gun owners themselves. And even if there was such support, it'd still take a constitutional convention to do it, which is highly unlikely. So say it with me: A limitation is not a ban.
Oh, please... MANY of the marchers interviewed on the MSM advocated banning guns. And just today, a retired Supreme Court Justice advocated repealing the 2nd Amendment.
Yes. ALL STATE gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and ILLEGAL. Firearms are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. The states gave up their right to regulate guns when they became states! That's the problem!
So if the federal government enacted gun legislation, that would be fine, right? The Constitution is, in fact, a federal document. If firearms are the responsibility of the federal government, any legislation they make would make obsolete any state laws.
The solution is NOT to pass even more laws that won't be enforced.
Had Cruz been prosecuted for his crimes, as he should have been (the unauthorized possession of a knife on school property is a 3rd degree felony in Florida - Cruz was selling knives to fellow students at school), he would NOT have passed the background check required to buy a gun.
Broward enacted the Obama/Holder-era policy to supposedly "end" the "school-to-prison pipeline," therefore Broward diverted Cruz out of the justice system and to only the school disciplinary system, which suspended him. Thus, he was able to maintain a clean criminal record, pass the background check, and buy the gun with which he proceeded to kill 17 innocent people.
How much resentment was created by the actions of a few?
Now Cruz had a target, for all his harm.
Who hurt him the most and who he feared the most. People are going to die when there is no where to turn, but going out in a blaze of glory.
They have had a can on Cruz and have presented the AR-15 as the perp.
So you think your average burglar is going to hack the government just to find out if you have a gun?
Nope, but a hacker with half a brain could make a killing selling that list by zip code on the black market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
You think China will? Seems like a low-priority list for serious hackers.
We already know Russia is doing what it can to create division, what a great tool for them to leverage to mess with our next election, registered gun owners vs. everyone else
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Also, though, isn't all that information already out there? When someone buys a gun, there is a record, right?
Mostly, but not legacy ones, private sale ones, personally manufactured ones. You are calling for a 100% list centralized in one place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
If you don't believe a confiscation would happen, why would such a list make it easier?
My personal belief on the stability of our government has nothing to do with why having a centralized list of owners would make confiscation easier, this question makes no sense. Simple logic tells you it would be easier to accomplish confiscation with a list rather than without a list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Do you believe that the government will turn tyrannical?
Not yet, but we were founded on this idea, and there isn't a government that has lasted from the beginning of time until now, so they all fail and fail somehow, if we go down that path there are endless options of how some sort of tyrannical government could emerge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
If so, do you really believe that a bunch of gun owners would stand a chance against said nukes, tanks, millions of far better-trained soldiers, etc? I don't.
There is zero logic behind saying this, you are essentially saying you are a willing victim who will roll over at the first sign of trouble, you want zero opportunity to defend yourself. Historically this is never good for citizens.
Also, do you REALLY think that if the government became tyrannical they would use nuclear weapons on the homeland? I mean if the government wants to leverage some sort of mass control over the population, why destroy the surrounding infrastructure, environment and landscape that they want to take over? But besides all of that, Vietnam, Al-Qaeda, and Isis have proven that you don't need massive firepower to put up a fight against the US military, and again that wasn't on our home turf that they would tread much lighter on than some foreign land.
"the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The uninfringable Right belongs to "the people."
Oh, please... MANY of the marchers interviewed on the MSM advocated banning guns. And just today, a retired Supreme Court Justice advocated repealing the 2nd Amendment.
Don't be obtuse.
If the Founders had just meant people, why did they even mention the words "A well-regulated militia"? I'm sure we can go around and around on this and cite SCOTUS decisions all day, but I've not seen a lot of people tackle that. They could've easily just said that all people have the right to have arms and saved us 200 years of debate, but they didn't. They didn't seem like frivolous men.
Oh wow, you got me! Some marchers at an anti-gun violence march support the end of the 2nd. Breaking news. You're arguing with individual examples, but polling supports that most people don't support a ban on gun ownership. I know you need to keep repeating this claim to make the gun debate like a fight for basic freedoms, but it's really not.
Nope, but a hacker with half a brain could make a killing selling that list by zip code on the black market.
We already know Russia is doing what it can to create division, what a great tool for them to leverage to mess with our next election, registered gun owners vs. everyone else
Mostly, but not legacy ones, private sale ones, personally manufactured ones. You are calling for a 100% list centralized in one place.
My personal belief on the stability of our government has nothing to do with why having a centralized list of owners would make confiscation easier, this question makes no sense. Simple logic tells you it would be easier to accomplish confiscation with a list rather than without a list.
Not yet, but we were founded on this idea, and there isn't a government that has lasted from the beginning of time until now, so they all fail and fail somehow, if we go down that path there are endless options of how some sort of tyrannical government could emerge.
There is zero logic behind saying this, you are essentially saying you are a willing victim who will roll over at the first sign of trouble. Do you REALLY think that if the government became tyrannical they would use nuclear weapons on the homeland? I mean if the government wants to leverage some sort of mass control over the population, why destroy the surrounding infrastructure, environment and landscape that they want to take over? But besides all of that, Vietnam, Alquida, and Isis have proven that you don't need massive firepower to put up a fight against the US military, and again that wasn't on our home turf that they would tread much lighter on than some foreign land.
Most of this is just hypothetical assumptions. Again, if someone really wanted to know who had guns, they could find out already. Maybe not one purchased 150 years ago and passed down through generations, but most people don't ONLY own antiques and family heirloom guns. Hell, you could go on most people's Facebook these days and figure out who probably has a gun and who doesn't.
If you don't fear confiscation, there's really no reason to bring it up. And if you really believed that the country was in some imminent, or even long-term danger of collapse, why don't you have guns? You mentioned you are not a gun owner, but seem to at least share some of the fears of gun owners.
I never said anything about rolling over, but I am also a realist. So no, I don't think a bunch of untrained people, regardless of how many guns they own, are going to defeat an organized US military bent on domination of the public.
If the Founders had just meant people, why did they even mention the words "A well-regulated militia"?
They were describing the reason why well-regulated militias were needed: to secure a free State. However, they deliberately CHANGED the wording to "the people" when describing to whom the uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms applied.
Don't be obtuse. You really need to read the Federalist Papers.
Most of this is just hypothetical assumptions. Again, if someone really wanted to know who had guns, they could find out already. Maybe not one purchased 150 years ago and passed down through generations, but most people don't ONLY own antiques and family heirloom guns. Hell, you could go on most people's Facebook these days and figure out who probably has a gun and who doesn't.
If you don't fear confiscation, there's really no reason to bring it up. And if you really believed that the country was in some imminent, or even long-term danger of collapse, why don't you have guns? You mentioned you are not a gun owner, but seem to at least share some of the fears of gun owners.
I never said anything about rolling over, but I am also a realist. So no, I don't think a bunch of untrained people, regardless of how many guns they own, are going to defeat an organized US military bent on domination of the public.
Aren't you the one who was asking for "honest" conversation about this? Then you go ask a bunch of questions about hypothetical scenarios and dismiss all of my honest answers by brushing them off as hypothetical assumptions? Just remember that as you sit there convincing yourself that its the other side/guy who is the reason that we cant have honest conversations on the topic.
Last edited by t206; 03-27-2018 at 01:39 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.
You really need to read the Federalist Papers.