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.
I can clearly see you are hung up on this one case. who is to say what could’ve happened if they weren’t armed they outnumbered him and could have run him over or beat the blank out of him and still fatally injure him. you don’t necessarily need a gun to kill someone. i would think that was obvious
Unlikely if fist were used he would have been beaten to death by 2 men over the age of 65 and one obese man who looks like his only exercise is eating burgers. I'm only stating that if one has to go armed 100% of the time they live in fear and raises the chances of facing legal action. Just ask the Wuestenbergs who pulled guns on a angry black woman in a parking lot. Remember DA has no risk in charging you with crimes you have 100% of the risk of being found guilty.
The fact is guns make it so easy to kill only afterward they regret what they did. Just ask Travis McMichael you think he regrets what he did?
Unlikely if fist were used he would have been beaten to death by 2 men over the age of 65 and one obese man who looks like his only exercise is eating burgers. I'm only stating that if one has to go armed 100% of the time they live in fear and raises the chances of facing legal action. Just ask the Wuestenbergs who pulled guns on a angry black woman in a parking lot. Remember DA has no risk in charging you with crimes you have 100% of the risk of being found guilty.
The fact is guns make it so easy to kill only afterward they regret what they did. Just ask Travis McMichael you think he regrets what he did?
do the inner city gangsters feel remorse about all the death they cause? who cares, right? the constitution doesn’t care about your emotions and mental gymnastics. it doesn’t care what prosecutors do or don’t do. it doesn’t care about racist vigilantes. it doesn’t care about the victims of gun violence…and it shouldn’t. the founders knew that an armed populace was important for many reasons. it’s my constitutional right to own guns. i can have no guns, or many guns. just because you think it will be a problem for me in some way is irrelevant.
There was a scene in City On The Hill last night. Decoursey's wife (who has been previously shot) was being threatened by a guy with a crowbar. Decoursey came up behind him with what appeared to be a .45 Cal and put it on the guy's back of neck. Moved him away and then the guy said something like "ill be back again with worse"or something to that extent.
I told my DW sitting comfortable next to me and the dog that at that point I would have shot and killed the guy. Problem solved, threat over.
To me if you have a guy threatening murder on you it's your job to eliminate the threat. Is it just me?
do the inner city gangsters feel remorse about all the death they cause? who cares, right? the constitution doesn’t care about your emotions and mental gymnastics. it doesn’t care what prosecutors do or don’t do. it doesn’t care about racist vigilantes. it doesn’t care about the victims of gun violence…and it shouldn’t. the founders knew that an armed populace was important for many reasons. it’s my constitutional right to own guns. i can have no guns, or many guns. just because you think it will be a problem for me in some way is irrelevant.
I own many firearms my argument isn't about what you can own or not never said I support gun control because I don't. The constant banter here how have to carry because criminals are everywhere and out to get you is exactly why some gun owners find themselves in legal trouble. The founding fathers won't raise from the grave and tell the Jury, "You are infringing on the defendants 2A rights". The jury will find the defendant guilty so they can be home for dinner.
I own many firearms my argument isn't about what you can own or not never said I support gun control because I don't. The constant banter here how have to carry because criminals are everywhere and out to get you is exactly why some gun owners find themselves in legal trouble. The founding fathers won't raise from the grave and tell the Jury, "You are infringing on the defendants 2A rights". The jury will find the defendant guilty so they can be home for dinner.
oh okay, i didn’t realize that the right to carry was what you were arguing against when I was referring to ownership and defending personal property.
That's just false. There were many MORE gun laws in that period and later in frontier areas than many of the 2nd amendment folks now realize or admit.
I guess we'll see who's right over time. If the country was awash in gun laws during the time that the 2nd Amendment was ratified, you're right and gun control will stand. All the control proponents have to do is provide that information during the lawsuit seeking to strike down a particular gun control law.
Oh, here's another law which was just declared unconstitutional in light of Bruen. I guess there was no history or tradition of banning people from making their own guns. So far, time has been proving you wrong. Another domino:
When will the gun control act of 1968 be overturned?
GCA 1968 won't be overturned, because it is based on regulation of interstate commerce. Much like the NFA was a tax bill. Congress has the express power to regulate interstate commerce and to write tax laws.
GCA 1968 won't be overturned, because it is based on regulation of interstate commerce. Much like the NFA was a tax bill. Congress has the express power to regulate interstate commerce and to write tax laws.
The 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act) was first brought to a District Court in northern Arkansas in the case US v. Miller. The firearm in question in this case, was a short-barreled shotgun the Miller had purchased for $5.00. Later he brought it across a state line, without getting the forms and paying the tax ($200.00!!) required by the NFA.
It took the judge 20 minutes to decide that the NFA was clearly NOT a tax bill, but a deliberate attempt to prevent sales and other transfers of firearms from person to person. He declared the NFA unconstitutional.
The U.S. Govt immediately took the case directly to the Supreme Court. Miller and his lawyer failed to show up for the trail, so the Justices rubber-stamped some lies into the record and overturned the District Court's judgement.
ON EDIT:
Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is codified in the body of the original Constitution. The 2nd amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) were added approx. 10 years later. Since it came later as an amendment, it modified sections of the Constitution to which it applied. One of those sections was the language declaring that Congress had the power to regulate IC.
Once the BOR was ratified, Congress still had the power to regulate IC... as long as its regulation did not violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 1934 NFA clearly did exactly that, charging a $200 tax on a purchase that cost $5. The intention of the NFA was clearly to infringe the right or keep and bear arms by preventing the large majority of sales or other transfers of firearms, not merely to raise revenue. And that made it unconstitutional.
GCA 1968 won't be overturned, because it is based on regulation of interstate commerce. Much like the NFA was a tax bill. Congress has the express power to regulate interstate commerce and to write tax laws.
....and how that has been twisted and perverted over the years.
the 1934 nfa (national firearms act) was first brought to a district court in northern arkansas in the case us v. Miller. The firearm in question in this case, was a short-barreled shotgun the miller had purchased for $5.00. Later he brought it across a state line, without getting the forms and paying the tax ($200.00!!) required by the nfa.
It took the judge 20 minutes to decide that the nfa was clearly not a tax bill, but a deliberate attempt to prevent sales and other transfers of firearms from person to person. He declared the nfa unconstitutional.
The u.s. Govt immediately took the case directly to the supreme court. Miller and his lawyer failed to show up for the trail, so the justices rubber-stamped some lies into the record and overturned the district court's judgement.
On edit:
Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is codified in the body of the original constitution. The 2nd amendment (and the rest of the bill of rights) were added approx. 10 years later. Since it came later as an amendment, it modified sections of the constitution to which it applied. One of those sections was the language declaring that congress had the power to regulate ic.
Once the bor was ratified, congress still had the power to regulate ic... As long as its regulation did not violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 1934 nfa clearly did exactly that, charging a $200 tax on a purchase that cost $5. The intention of the nfa was clearly to infringe the right or keep and bear arms by preventing the large majority of sales or other transfers of firearms, not merely to raise revenue. And that made it unconstitutional.
+1
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.
