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.
This is why we need to get rid of the 2A ASAP. If these men had no access to firearms it would greatly reduce the fatalities of woman in bad relationships.
So all you pro gun nuts remember this...when your sisters, daughters, Moms, aunts are killed by a firearm from being in a relationship with an abuser with a firearm. You fought to put that firearm in that murder's hands. You are basically co-signing on their murders.
"Intimate partner violence and gun violence in the US are inextricably linked, impacting millions of women, families, and communities across the country. Abusers with firearms are five times more likely to kill their victims, and guns further exacerbate the power and control dynamic used by abusers to inflict emotional abuse and exert coercive control over their victims."
"This is why we need to get rid of the 2A ASAP. If these men had no access to firearms it would greatly reduce the fatalities of woman in bad relationships."
Who said ALL the women were skilled via gun? I sure didn't
A gun gives them PROTECTION against a much bigger and stronger assailant.
"The ancient artifact 2ND Amendment is Sharia Law."
Hell, let's just get rid of the entire Constitution.
Did you even bother to read WHY we have 2nd amendment?
I seriously DOUBT you did!
In fact, I doubt you did ANY research into site you use.
"1. Strengthening state laws prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing guns and requiring abusers to relinquish guns they already have.
With that said, there is a difference between speech that DID cause harm(eg riot), and speech that COULD cause harm. Prior to the Schenck case, speech was only criminal when it DID cause harm. So if your words caused the deaths of other people, you were held responsible for their deaths. After the Schenck case, the Supreme Court decided that if your words simply have the potential to cause harm, the government can prevent you from saying them.
Right. And there are several other kinds of speech that are not protected as "free speech," as decided by SCOTUS. Obscenity, child pornography, incitement to suicide, threatening the life of the President, false statements of fact, "fighting words" etc.... These things are not mentioned in the Constitution. So, by a strict reading of the Constitution, wouldn't a law outlawing obscenity be unconstitutional? Is is after all, "infringing" on free speech.
Quote:
This same dynamic is what we're debating in regards to the second amendment. Can the government restrict the second amendment in order to prevent potential harm? For instance, virtually all people believe that it should be illegal for felons and the mentally-ill to own guns because we believe the danger they pose is sufficient to warrant such a restriction...
But that goes to the title of the thread. Ardent 2A supporters believe that to deny "felons and the mentally ill" gun rights is a violation of the 2A. That it's unconstitutional. The 2A amendment says you can't "infringe." To deny a felon the right to buy a gun is an "infringement" of that felon's 2A right.
The OP believes that background checks are unconstitutional. Ardent 2A supporters believe that ANY gun regulations are a violation of the 2A. Which puts them at odds with (as you said) "virtually all people," and the SCOTUS, when it comes to selling guns to "felons and the mentally-ill."
Okay, so, you do NOT believe that background checks for gun purchases are unconstitutional. (Or you believe they ARE unconstitutional, and you can live with them, for the good of public safety.) That's the title of the thread. That's what I was getting at.
There are some ardent 2A supporters who believe that ANY gun regulations, including background check requirements for gun purchases, are unconstitutional, that is, they violate the 2A. Which means, they are okay with dangerously insane people, or violent felons/drug traffickers buying guns. Or at least they'd prefer that to ANY kind of gun regulations.
The OP hasn't yet answered the question. I have to assume that, because he thinks ALL background checks are unconstitutional, he can live with dangerously insane people and violent felons/drug traffickers/murderers having free and open access to guns.
Because that's what would happen. You can't get around it. If you have NO gun regulations, dangerously insane people and violent felons/drug traffickers/murderers will have free and open access to whatever kinds of guns they want. Whenever and wherever they want.
--
"Okay, so, you do NOT believe that background checks for gun purchases are unconstitutional. (Or you believe they ARE unconstitutional, and you can live with them,"
What part of "I have REPEATEDLY stated I am OK with background checks". do you NOT understand?
There are some ardent supporters on EVERY issue, so what is your point?
"I have to assume". You Are NOT a MIND READER so STOP with "ASSUMING" THIS AND THAT.
Hear we go AGAIN with the assume, if, maybe, could and on and on and on.
One would think that after over 4 years of this nonsense some would just STOP!
Right. And there are several other kinds of speech that are not protected as "free speech," as decided by SCOTUS. Obscenity, child pornography, incitement to suicide, threatening the life of the President, false statements of fact, "fighting words" etc.... These things are not mentioned in the Constitution. So, by a strict reading of the Constitution, wouldn't a law outlawing obscenity be unconstitutional? Is is after all, "infringing" on free speech.
But that goes to the title of the thread. Ardent 2A supporters believe that to deny "felons and the mentally ill" gun rights is a violation of the 2A. That it's unconstitutional. The 2A amendment says you can't "infringe." To deny a felon the right to buy a gun is an "infringement" of that felon's 2A right.
The OP believes that background checks are unconstitutional. Ardent 2A supporters believe that ANY gun regulations are a violation of the 2A. Which puts them at odds with (as you said) "virtually all people," and the SCOTUS, when it comes to selling guns to "felons and the mentally-ill."
--
"Ardent 2A supporters believe that to deny "felons and the mentally ill" gun rights is a violation of the 2A."
Why do you think it's ok to let people who are too dangerous to allow them to exercise their Constitutional rights to walk freely in society?
I believe when you CHOOSE to commit certain crimes and are caught you forfeit certain rights. Been that way from the beginning of our 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.
