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.
Please try to read the entire post before you respond.
1. I totally understand the Second Amendment. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I 100% agree with that.
No. I doubt if you really understand why the Second Amendment, along with nine other amendments, were adopted by the States and people therein.
The purpose of the Tenth Amendment, which was added to our constitution with nine other amendments, was specifically, and intentionally, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the newly created government’s powers.
And, these amendments, referred to as the “Bill of Rights”, are ten declaratory and restrictive clauses which are enforceable upon the federal government in its exercise of powers, not the State governments!
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.
Additional evidence is James Madison, speaking with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and confirming their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:
“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution
The bottom line is, the first ten amendments added to our Constitution, were specifically adopted to preserve federalism and keep the federal government's nose out of those matters which, in "...the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." See Federalist No. 45
Again the age to become a cop is not 18, except for police explorers and cadets, and they are generally not armed. In some states 21 is not even old enough to become a cop. So there is no conflict there with raising the age to buy a gun to 21. Also gun ownership is no contingent with military service. So there is not conflict there either.
Because they are enforcing the law and need more training. You can't jut send a H.S. graduate with a gun and a badge to enforce the law with just a gun training. They have to deal with the law and millions different kind of people. Maybe they don't want to put somebody that young in that environment everyday and won't get the respect of the people he is trying to enforce the law on.
They are not going to let 18,19 or 20 year old run a Seal Unit. It's years of training because it's a lot more than just knowing how to operate a weapon which all of them do just to graduate from Buds after Boot Camp.
An adult person doesn't have a right to be a police officer at 18 or any age but an adult person has the constitutional right to possess a firearm and due process if the government wants to take it from him.
My point is the brain development to know the law and to operate a weapon. The government is b.s. When I joined the U.S. Navy in 1990 after High School, the first thing they go over with you is military law. Murder (UCMJ Article 118), manslaughter (UCMJ Article 119), and negligent homicide (UCMJ Article 134). We had 17,18, 19 and 20 years old in the company and all got handgun training then 3 months after that I got deeper weapon training and to shoot in the open field in Land survival in Pensacola. I'm sure the Army and Marines got a lot more of gun training (it's their job). I never heard the government argue that 17,18,19,20 brains aren't developed yet for the responsibilities and duties of the military life which is a lot more stressful and demanding from civilian. For some to use it now for gun control because 2 crimes are being disingenuous.
Unless you have difficulty reading, it clearly says strict gun laws don’t work and most gun violence is from handguns.
So again, your gun laws on “assault weapons” won’t solve mass shootings.
I know couldn’t care less about blacks killing other blacks with handguns, but it’s 99% of gun violence which makes any law on rifles worthless.
Again you are confusing general gun violence with mass shootings of strangers in a crowded place. I never said anything about handguns or standard rifles, the discussion is about mass shootings specifically but not limited to the most recent mass shooting in Texas.
I'm just so frustrated that your group won't give an inch. We have tried it your way, how's it working out? We could put the entire Federal Budget into "mental health" and we will still have mentally disturbed people being able to legally purchase guns. No program will catch the vast majority of sick people, many whose parents or friends had no idea they were in this state.
Most are not even calling for more restrictions on hand guns rifles and your other toys. I'm certainly not, as I said I support 2A. We are proposing the simple act of making it harder for crazy people to purchase a gun and to look look at the actual need for an 18 year old (or anyone for that matter) to legally purchase a gun and magazine specifically designed to shoot as many rounds as possible before a reload.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 06-09-2022 at 03:11 PM..
Meanwhile, in New York, the state legislature just passed sweeping gun reform laws in wake of the Buffalo grocery store shooting. Gov. Kathy Hochul said it was day of reckoning for both the country and the state.
Some question if it will change things in any way. My main take is that hopefully it will help connect the dots between social media posts and those trying to buy a gun. The law also bans body armor. Late night talk show host Trevor Noah had an interesting take on the bill.
None of the gun nuts have even responded to this.
It confirms what I already knew, they are all hot air, and they shut their traps and go back to their lives when the laws are actually changed.
Youd think someone would stand on principle by talking about how draconian the NY governor is.
But nope, they could care less. Just numbnuts shootin from the hip on CD, the only power they really have, and nothing more, it isnt really that important. When the law hit their doors, they will do nothing. No one is dying to be able to keep a stupid assault rifle.
Just when you thought he couldn't go any lower than he did.
He truly has no shame, guilt, or conscience whatsoever over what happened. When the executive director of the Texas department of Public Safety admits that things were done wrongly, it makes the chief look even more pathetic.
Although I know nothing about this subject and I may well be totally wrong about this... however, I believe I am correct in saying that the President can declare a State of Emergency anytime and at that point, all kinds of powers come into force, many of which are far more draconian than what is being debated here.
These Powers come about because of the ability of the President to create (I forget what they are called) special executive orders(?) which do not have to be approved by anyone and are largely not publicised. Some of these are very wide ranging and involve agencies and departments you would never believe. I suspect you will find gun control is already in place when there is an emergency declared. These are the kinds of things which should be questioned because they go directly against the Constitution.
Those are your words and do not even remotely reflect what I have POSTED
What I have posted confirms Congress is without a constitutionally authorized power to regulate the States' and people's right to keep and bear arms.
.
If you believe that do what I said show up at your local police department with a unregistered converted AR-15 to a full auto tell them " Congress is without a constitutionally authorized power to regulate the States' and people's right to keep and bear arms" Something even easier just get a shotgun and saw off the barrel to about 10 inches and take that down there. Call your local ATF office if you want to test federal laws.
If you believe that do what I said show up at your local police department with a unregistered converted AR-15 to a full auto tell them " Congress is without a constitutionally authorized power to regulate the States' and people's right to keep and bear arms" Something even easier just get a shotgun and saw off the barrel to about 10 inches and take that down there. Call your local ATF office if you want to test federal laws.
So, instead of supporting or contesting what I posted HERE, which contains supportive documentation, you choose to respond with a snarky reply.
So, instead of supporting or contesting what I posted HERE, which contains supportive documentation, you choose to respond with a snarky reply.
.
I'm not making a snarky point your opinion of the constitution is far different then what the Supreme court opinion is theirs is the only one that matters not yours. You know this if you really believed in your own opinion of it then you would test the theory in court. You know what will happen you be sitting in prison wondering what went wrong. The bill of rights is what the supreme court says it is that's the real world. This is why I keep saying the constitution is not worth the paper it was printed on it's a joke because the Supreme Court decides how it's applied to laws based on their political lean. This is why 50 years ago abortion was made legal now it's being reversed. If liberal judges end up on the court abortion will be legal again. In 1944 the supreme court rubber stamped the imprisonment of American born citizens who happen to be of Japanese's ancestry. This was after several years of lower courts siding with the federal Government. The bill of rights only apply when the courts allow it to apply.
The SC has stated over and over that the 2nd amendment does not restrain the federal government from passing laws to regulate firearms. The 1934 National Firearms Act, and the 1968 Gun Control act have both been upheld by the courts. Changing the age to 21 for all firearm sales is not going change the courts opinion.
Last edited by kell490; 06-10-2022 at 08:47 AM..
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.
