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.
Maybe if all individuals didn't have to give up their rights to the State at birth and then get them handed back to them if they eat all of their veggies we could have property owners defending their own property, with the moral and logical high ground.
Then let's see how many thugs try to B&E the local Costco when they know individuals have rights and if violated they can defend themselves.
The residents and business owners should be allowed to protect their cities against the looting destructive scumbags. I know they did in our town last night. But across the state line some looting and burning with only a few trying to stop it.
I don’t have a team. But again Republicans have delivered some. Both Trump and Reagan supported gun control.
No one is getting rid of guns. Turning over a constitutional amendment is nigh impossible in this divisive climate. It’s a nothing burger played up pretend threat, mostly just to sell more guns. Anyone who has taken an elementary level social studies course could tell you that. 2/3 majority in the legislature and 3/4 ratification by states. Never happening.
Of course you have a "team" just as I have a "team" that believes just the way we do. We vote accordingly for the "team" that best supports our beliefs. I'm just pointing out your own hypocrisy. Who are you trying to kid?
Passing unconstitutional gun laws and overturning a Constitutional amendment are two different things. Anyone who has taken an elementary level social studies course could tell you that.
Sure we'll still have the 2nd Amendment but the government if run by Democrats will pass laws that determine what types of firearms can be lawfully owned. Including those which were lawfully owned before their anti gun legislation was passed. New York's "Safe Act" is a prime example which outlawed the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds including those which were lawfully owned prior to that law making it a Class A misdemeanor.
They are already proposing assault weapons bans which would literally ban the sale and possession of every semi automatic firearm that has a detachable magazine. Anything can be labeled as an assault weapon. I have taken the time to read such proposed legislation.
Then there is the issue of activist judges appointed by the Democrats that believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to members of a state sponsored militia and will rule accordingly. In the Heller and McDonald decisions that confirmed the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right unrelated to service in a militia. Four justices dissented. Had there been one more activist justice on the Supreme Court the 2nd Amendment as an individual right would have been history. No 2/3 majority in the legislature and no 3/4 ratification by states.
If the Democrats can't overturn a Constitutional amendment with 2/3 majority in the legislature and 3/4 ratification by states. They'll do it through the courts when given the opportunity to nominate anti gun justices to the state and federal bench. Mike Bloomberg has already vowed to do this if elected president. As much as I can't stand Bloomberg, he's no idiot and understands as do all Democrat that the only way they can abolish or at the very least neuter the 2nd Amendment is through the courts. Circumventing the process for amending the Constitution.
The problem with Democrats is that they think that people are just too stupid to be able to figure this all out? By making condescending and asinine statements that: "nobody's gonna' take anybody's guns." Or that: "it's just scare tactics used to sell more guns." When their actions say just the opposite. In the justices they support, the legislation they have proposed and passed in some states, and the very word's coming out of Democrat politicians mouths. The threats to the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law by Democrats is very real. It's thee major obstacle in their quest for absolute power and control.
Quote:
In an op-ed published in the New York Times Tuesday, the 97-year-old former Supreme Court justice argues that advocates for stricter gun control legislation should take the next step and demand the removal of the Second Amendment entirely. --John Paul Stevens (D) former Supreme Court justice
"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."
"In my view, if the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that Amendment was very important when the nation was new, it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms but it was for one purpose only, and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."--Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D) Supreme Court Justice
“Gun control, may ultimately be decided, and the new appointees can tip the very balance of the court."--Louis Butler (D) former justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In my view, Justice Stevens has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "substantive due process" does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment with this objective in view. Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the carrying of arms for that purpose often puts others' lives at risk. And the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation....
I shall therefore separately consider the question of "incorporation." I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as "fundamental" insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.
Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not "incorporate" the Second Amendment's right "to keep and bear Arms." And I consequently dissent....-- Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting. OTIS McDONALD, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 06-02-2020 at 11:59 AM..
Cops are supposed to protect the people. Military is supposed to fight the nation's enemies. If you start mixing those two, you end up with the military fighting the people.
Last I read we had a piece of paper saying Americans were free to worship from whatever book they chose.
Is that just another thing 'The Donald' has effed up in America?
At least "the last guy" didn't think he was free to do whatever he wanted, unrestrained by any laws although the hypocrites on the right did get their knockers all in a twist over him merely putting his feet up on his desk as opposed to its current user who craps on it.
You mean like sending guns to the cartels and using the IRS to stifle conservative speech? How about spying on the Trump Campaign and interfering with the election?
Cops are supposed to protect the people. Military is supposed to fight the nation's enemies. If you start mixing those two, you end up with the military fighting the people.
Then what do you call those who riot and loot? Friends of the nation?
Of course you have a "team" just as I have a "team" that believes just the way we do. We vote accordingly for the "team" that best supports our beliefs. I'm just pointing out your own hypocrisy. Who are you trying to kid?
Passing unconstitutional gun laws and overturning a Constitutional amendment are two different things. Anyone who has taken an elementary level social studies course could tell you that.
Sure we'll still have the 2nd Amendment but the government if run by Democrats will pass laws that determine what types of firearms can be lawfully owned. Including those which were lawfully owned before their anti gun legislation was passed. New York's "Safe Act" is a prime example which outlawed the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds including those which were lawfully owned prior to that law making it a Class A misdemeanor.
They are already proposing assault weapons bans which would literally ban the sale and possession of every semi automatic firearm that has a detachable magazine. Anything can be labeled as an assault weapon. I have taken the time to read such proposed legislation.
Then there is the issue of activist judges appointed by the Democrats that believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to members of a state sponsored militia and will rule accordingly. In the Heller and McDonald decisions that confirmed the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right unrelated to service in a militia. Four justices dissented. Had there been one more activist justice on the Supreme Court the 2nd Amendment as an individual right would have been history. No 2/3 majority in the legislature and no 3/4 ratification by states.
If the Democrats can't overturn a Constitutional amendment with 2/3 majority in the legislature and 3/4 ratification by states. They'll do it through the courts when given the opportunity to nominate anti gun justices to the state and federal bench. Mike Bloomberg has already vowed to do this if elected president. As much as I can't stand Bloomberg, he's no idiot and understands as do all Democrat that the only way they can abolish or at the very least neuter the 2nd Amendment is through the courts. Circumventing the process for amending the Constitution.
The problem with Democrats is that they think that people are just too stupid to be able to figure this all out? By making condescending and asinine statements that: "nobody's gonna' take anybody's guns." Or that: "it's just scare tactics used to sell more guns." When their actions say just the opposite. In the justices they support, the legislation they have proposed and passed in some states, and the very word's coming out of Democrat politicians mouths. The threats to the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law by Democrats is very real. It's thee major obstacle in their quest for absolute power and control.
No, I don't have a team. And vote 3rd party, Democrat, or Republican in any given election.
Some Democrats say they support strict gun control. There isn't enough support even within the Democrat party itself to actually implement. But what do you say about Trump actually getting some implemented and saying he wants to seize guns without due process? Is that OK just because he has an (R) next to his name?
Yeah, all those right-wing militia types in their pickups, wearing camo outfits from Cabela's, and boxes on ammo they got on sale at Jake's Trading Post have been invisible. Where are they? This should be "go time," right? Nah, they are all down at the waffle shop, all talk, no action. Posers.
They aren't going to go out looking for trouble. They are at home protecting THEIR property.
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.
