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.
. And requiring things like licensing, is not banning.
registration and licensing is the path to the dark side, the path to the government confiscating them.... history shows this
the liberals are not interested in protecting kids or people... their interest is taking your rights away, confiscating legal guns, so that they can have their tyranny.
Quote:
"Waiting periods are only a step., Registration is only a step., The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Janet Reno
Quote:
"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sarah Brady
Quote:
"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban all guns." Rahm Emmanuel
Quote:
There is no reason for anyone in this country -- anyone except a police officer or military person -- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit all guns." Bill Clinton
its like liberals take their marching orders from the left of the past
Quote:
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the people." Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Quote:
"If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." Josef Stalin
Quote:
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! – Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
Quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subordinate people to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subordinate people to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations
the liberals are not interested in protecting kids or people... their interest is taking your rights away, confiscating legal guns, so that they can have their tyranny.
I'm a liberal American, and my concern is with this whole situation (uniquely) in our country:
Guns are inanimate objects which don't cause violence, but they absolutely enable it. Since we can't ever solve the root socio-economic type causes (and Republicans never have much interest in doing anything there, either), what we can do is change our firearms laws. I'm for whatever we can do that's constitutional. I am not ready to say we need to repeal the 2A. We just need to interpret it more reasonably and within the context of our modern day and modern day challenges in the US which are prompting the need for the gun laws.
The only people who think that The Constitution needs "interpreting" are those who would profit from twisting it's meaning, and those who just don't like what it very plainly says.
The courts have to interpret what the Constitution says when two parties disagree on the meaning. If I say "it means A" and you say "no, it means B", the courts make the decision. Courts don't interpret the Constitution unless there's a case in front of the court.
Do the courts have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments?
The part referring to "a militia" is merely an explanation for WHY the right to keep and bear arms can't be infringed.
If an angel waved her magic wand and suddenly a militia was no longer necessary, the meaning of the 2nd amendment would remain unchanged. It would still be a command that the RKBA can never be infringed.
The supreme Court has the authority to make a final decision on what the Constitution says. Once SCOTUS rules, your opinion or mine is irrelevant.
Guns are inanimate objects which don't cause violence, but they absolutely enable it. Since we can't ever solve the root socio-economic type causes (and Republicans never have much interest in doing anything there, either), what we can do is change our firearms laws. I'm for whatever we can do that's constitutional. I am not ready to say we need to repeal the 2A. We just need to interpret it more reasonably and within the context of our modern day and modern day challenges in the US which are prompting the need for the gun laws.
Wrong. There are several firearms within arms reach, and they aren't enabling a damn thing.
There are thousands of Federal and State firearms laws on the books, we have back ground checks, we have concealed pistol licensing, what else do you want ? You state the need for "gun laws" ...do you forget that criminals don't follow laws ? Do you realize how many laws are being broken when some 16 year old in Detroit guns down someone over a bag of potato chips ? What laws are you going to come up with that will prevent that ?
I've never seen a violent gun in my life. They just pretty much sit there, inert.
I've seen a number of violent people, though. Some of whom have and use guns.
Since restricting guns is off limits, maybe you should direct your efforts toward the violent people, eh? It may be a new concept to you. But in normal places, it's actually been known to work. And it doesn't even violate the Constitution.
what we can do is change our firearms laws. I'm for whatever we can do that's constitutional.
Good. Getting rid of the firearms laws (since they are almost completely unconstitutional) would be a good start. How are you doing on that?
Since restricting guns is off limits, maybe you should direct your efforts toward the violent people, eh? It may be a new concept to you. But in normal places, it's actually been known to work. And it doesn't even violate the Constitution.
Wrong. There are several firearms within arms reach, and they aren't enabling a damn thing.
Lol, so you're saying that if you picked up a gun and shot someone, the existence and presence of said gun is not an enabler of you shooting them? It's fundamentally the very thing that enables gun violence.
Did guns not enable the means of the JFK or MLK assassination?
The guy who shot 400+ people (killing 60 of them) within 10 minutes, in Las Vegas in 2017? Guns didn't enable that? He could just as easily have shot and killed that many people that quickly using a pocket knife, or a bowl of cereal?
Quote:
There are thousands of Federal and State firearms laws on the books, we have back ground checks, we have concealed pistol licensing, what else do you want ?
I would like to see comprehensive national firearms control policies, much like what Canada has in place. Starting with at the very least, universal background check requirements and closing some loopholes with that.
Quote:
You state the need for "gun laws" ...do you forget that criminals don't follow laws ?
Criminals don't follow laws... so therefore we shouldn't have laws? Is that really your argument?
Criminals are opportunists. If we make it more challenging/risky to commit crime, fewer crimes will happen. That's kind of the whole point of a society having laws.
Quote:
Do you realize how many laws are being broken when some 16 year old in Detroit guns down someone over a bag of potato chips ? What laws are you going to come up with that will prevent that ?
Are you ready to tackle poverty, are you ready to invest tax money into these gang-ravaged communities, etc?
If you want to solve the root cause of our violence issue, then fine. If we do that, then I'm fine with our minimal/lax gun control. But until we can do that, we need to be controlling the weapons that are enabling most of this violence. Guns are an inanimate tool that make it as easy as a twitch of the finger to murder someone or multiple people, from a distance.
If we can make it illegal for people to have anthrax or nuclear bombs in their garage, then we should be able to reasonably regulate firearms...
Guns are inanimate objects which don't cause violence, but they absolutely enable it. Since we can't ever solve the root socio-economic type causes (and Republicans never have much interest in doing anything there, either), what we can do is change our firearms laws. I'm for whatever we can do that's constitutional. I am not ready to say we need to repeal the 2A. We just need to interpret it more reasonably and within the context of our modern day and modern day challenges in the US which are prompting the need for the gun laws.
Any laws that restrict ownership of a gun would be unconstitutional.
Let me use a hypothetical example that perhaps you and many others can understand.
A new amendment has been added to the constitution that states "owners of classic vehicles shall have the right to own them, and that right shall not be infringed."
A few years later, the state of California passes a law that states, "in an effort to cut down on air pollution, if your vehicle does not meet emission standards set forth in section 1234A of the clean air act, the state will confiscate your classic vehicle."
"Further, if your vehicle is in poor mechanical condition that could be a safety issue,, it will be confiscated by the state."
Both of these rules(laws) would be unconstitutional under this new constitutional amendment.
Now, substitute classic vehicles with the word guns, and the infringement word stands as written.
Again, and law that infringes upon gun ownership is illegal, and unconstitutional.
Any laws that restrict ownership of a gun would be unconstitutional.
I don't know what to tell you, since that's just plain incorrect.
For one example, laws that restrict ownership of a gun to convicted violent felons, and convicted domestic violence offenders. These laws have been in place, and have been held up as constitutional by the courts.
Quote:
Let me use a hypothetical example that perhaps you and many others can understand.
A new amendment has been added to the constitution that states "owners of classic vehicles shall have the right to own them, and that right shall not be infringed."
A few years later, the state of California passes a law that states, "in an effort to cut down on air pollution, if your vehicle does not meet emission standards set forth in section 1234A of the clean air act, the state will confiscate your classic vehicle."
"Further, if your vehicle is in poor mechanical condition that could be a safety issue,, it will be confiscated by the state."
Both of these rules(laws) would be unconstitutional under this new constitutional amendment.
Sounds like if you were sitting on the bench, that would be your opinion, then. Maybe some others could disagree. The court is the branch of our government which interprets laws and makes these determinations.
For one example, laws that restrict ownership of a gun to convicted violent felons, and convicted domestic violence offenders. These laws have been in place, and have been held up as constitutional by the courts.
Sure, constitutional by everyone.... except by the Constitution, where the 2nd amendment clearly forbids those restrictions.
If the courts say one thing, and the Constitution clearly says something else, which one wins? Which one supersedes the other?
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.
