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.
Its up to each state to make its own laws. Are you a Californian?
Personally, I have no problem submitting to a background check, to buy a firearm.
These two statements probably outlines the issue as clearly as any statements made thus far:
First, it is NOT up to each state to make it's own laws if those laws violate the constitution, and clearly, any law that infringes on the right to keep and bare arms, by definition, is an illegal law.
Secondly, I cringe at the "I have no problem 'submitting' comment. That is perhaps the most telling statement of all ... and the precise reason why we have so many difficulties these days ... too many Americans seem to have no problem in "submitting" to all sorts of infringements, violations, and indignities today, all at the whim of our "masters".
In fact, our founding fathers would be disgusted by such a mindset, and consider those "submissives" mortal enemies of the republic, as is so clearly conveyed in the words of Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Many more statements from several of our greatest minds of the time recognized that liberty was not something that is "won" or "granted", but is an idea that must be constantly attended to, and guarded, as there will always be men who seek power to deny that liberty.
The "Bill of Rights" is not called the "Bill of Privileges", because those wise men understood the difference ... "rights" cannot be denied to men by other men because they are birth rights. The very idea that the right to defend oneself can be denied is absurd ... this is your first and most important right ... self defense, and the defense of your your family, your property, your means of survival from those who would take those things from you the moment you were rendered defenseless (disarmed).
Those that would ignorantly "submit" to granting their right of self defense to another (police), are waving all of their rights in so doing, and accepting their role as an inferior, subject to the whims of others. Children require the protection of others ... not grown adults.
You may think that you have the right to "submit" and give up that responsibility ... but you do not. Because, in so doing ... you simultaneously wave the rights of your children, and your children's children, and you have no such right to do that.
Simple,
I'm in favor of passing laws that would make sure that only responsible gun owners can use guns.
Apply the same laws to gun that we have for cars:
- You have to pass a test to prove that you are competent to use a gun
- You have to be 16-18 to get a license to use a gun
- You have to have gun insurance, in case that you damage somebody else's property.
- Same as with cars (a driver's license doesn't give you the right to drive a 18 wheeler or a tank down the street) a special license would be required to use an automatic rifle or anything similar.
- Same as with a car, these laws don't apply if you use it in your own house or farm.
I don't understand why pro-gun people are afraid of having something like that.
Those laws should only scare criminals.
The question should be: Why should individuals who support the 2nd Amendment agree to compromise with those who would like to see their God given right to keep and bear arms abolished allow further infringement of their constitutionally affirmed right?
16-18 to use a firearm? Are you daft? That completely eliminates youth hunter safety, youth hunting, and youth shooting sports. You live in an imaginary world. Get real. My "license" to use a firearm is the 2nd Amendment and maintaining my status as a law-abiding citizen.
Why are hoplophobes such panty wetters always demanding further restrictions for law abiding gun owners? Get over your gun fears.
The question should be: Why should individuals who support the 2nd Amendment agree to compromise with those who would like to see their God given right to keep and bear arms abolished allow further infringement of their constitutionally affirmed right?
16-18 to use a firearm? Are you daft? That completely eliminates youth hunter safety, youth hunting, and youth shooting sports. You live in an imaginary world. Get real. My "license" to use a firearm is the 2nd Amendment and maintaining my status as a law-abiding citizen.
Why are hoplophobes such panty wetters always demanding further restrictions for law abiding gun owners? Get over your gun fears.
Indeed, the hoplophobes insist that all they want is 'common sense' regulations on firearms. Insisting they support the 2nd amendment, the 'right' of people to use firearms for 'sporting purposes' () blah blah. All they want is for us to 'submit' to fingerprinting, retinal scans, government controlled 'training and qualification', phsyc tests, registration and catalouging of our firearms in a central database, turn in our 'assault weapons' and handguns (we don't NEED these types of firearms) and the list goes on. Yea, sounds like support for our right to bear arms to me. Doen't sound like any infrigment is being proposed. Hell, it's all just "common sense" right?
When we ask law enforcement what we can do to prevent another Virginia Tech shooting—the response is invariably "close the Gun Show Loophole" to stop criminals, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other prohibited purchasers from getting guns.
Do you not trust a police officers judgement?
Blows my mind. When people say they don't trust cops about the Arizona law, the answer is "They aren't out to be bad cops, trust the police" Yet, when you bring up something like this, to hell with what the police tell you.
You can't have it both ways.
Let me tell you something ... you cannot trust anyone ... putting a uniform on and wearing a badge doesn't automatically make someone trust worthy or good ... in fact, many aggressive, less than benevolent personality types seek out such power as granted to police officers.
There certainly are both good and bad cops out there, as in all professions, as any small effort would easily prove. There are thousands of incidents of police brutality .. misapplication of the use of force by pumped up, shaved headed thugs in combat style uniforms. Where have you been? Where is this Utopian society of yours located where the police are all caped crusaders who appear from the sky to save you in the nick of time?
Do you realize anything of history's lessons? The true history of governments and their "police" are that of tyranny and mass murder of populations which has always been the rule rather than the exception.
So maybe you trust the current group today (I don't), but how can you trust what the future holds? Are you a fortune teller? A psychic?
The one thing is clear throughout history ... that the first step tyrants take is to disarm those whom they want to impose tyranny on ... and any step ... any measure that leads to that disarming, however veiled in "good intentions" is a step toward that result .. as history shows clearly.
Thomas Jefferson :"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".
Once government secures a power ... they never give it back, they only expand that power to greater and greater degrees. And gun confiscation generally starts in tiny steps ... not a massive grab ... little by little, through all sorts of rationalizations ... the right to keep and bare arms will taken away not by force, but by convincing the masses to go along .... first by registration (identifying who has them and where they are), then by outlawing certain types of guns ... certain types of sales ... certain types of individuals who cannot own guns. And all of this is made possible through ignorance and naivety by allowing one tiny infringement followed by another, and another, which the founding fathers understood. That is why the statement "Shall not be infringed ..." is there. It doesn't say may be infringed a little ... or may be denied for good reasons ... it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED .... Infringe: Def. "Act so as to limit or undermine".
These two statements probably outlines the issue as clearly as any statements made thus far:
First, it is NOT up to each state to make it's own laws if those laws violate the constitution, and clearly, any law that infringes on the right to keep and bare arms, by definition, is an illegal law.
Secondly, I cringe at the "I have no problem 'submitting' comment. That is perhaps the most telling statement of all ... and the precise reason why we have so many difficulties these days ... too many Americans seem to have no problem in "submitting" to all sorts of infringements, violations, and indignities today, all at the whim of our "masters".
In fact, our founding fathers would be disgusted by such a mindset, and consider those "submissives" mortal enemies of the republic, as is so clearly conveyed in the words of Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Many more statements from several of our greatest minds of the time recognized that liberty was not something that is "won" or "granted", but is an idea that must be constantly attended to, and guarded, as there will always be men who seek power to deny that liberty.
The "Bill of Rights" is not called the "Bill of Privileges", because those wise men understood the difference ... "rights" cannot be denied to men by other men because they are birth rights. The very idea that the right to defend oneself can be denied is absurd ... this is your first and most important right ... self defense, and the defense of your your family, your property, your means of survival from those who would take those things from you the moment you were rendered defenseless (disarmed).
Those that would ignorantly "submit" to granting their right of self defense to another (police), are waving all of their rights in so doing, and accepting their role as an inferior, subject to the whims of others. Children require the protection of others ... not grown adults.
You may think that you have the right to "submit" and give up that responsibility ... but you do not. Because, in so doing ... you simultaneously wave the rights of your children, and your children's children, and you have no such right to do that.
It is up to each state to make laws, within the Constitution, to their own state.
California never outlawed guns, and the national Constitution doesn't say anything about a waiting period, or a background check.
IF ANYONE CAN SHOW ME ANY STATE THAT OUTLAWS GUNS, ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE DO SO.
I'm not talking about assault rifles, where you can buy the exact same gun, without all of the military bling bling on it, I'm talking about you can't buy guns, period.
It is up to each state to make laws, within the Constitution, to their own state.
California never outlawed guns, and the national Constitution doesn't say anything about a waiting period, or a background check.
IF ANYONE CAN SHOW ME ANY STATE THAT OUTLAWS GUNS, ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE DO SO.
I'm not talking about assault rifles, where you can buy the exact same gun, without all of the military bling bling on it, I'm talking about you can't buy guns, period.
In the Heller case, the SCOTUS made it clear the second amendment covers all arms "in common use" at the time. Hence those bans are unconstitutional.
Once we have incorporation the states will not be free to infringe on this right.
Any burden created is unconstitutional just as poll taxes were, etc.
In the Heller case, the SCOTUS made it clear the second amendment covers all arms "in common use" at the time. Hence those bans are unconstitutional.
Once we have incorporation the states will not be free to infringe on this right.
Any burden created is unconstitutional just as poll taxes were, etc.
Then file a lawsuit,
Oh yeah, the NRA already has, and lost.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA's case challenging D.C.'s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices." Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.
Judge Urbina rejected Heller's assertion that D.C.'s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a "strict scrutiny" standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
Urbina agreed that D.C.'s firearm registration scheme implicates the "core Second Amendment right," which, based upon the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court "suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter," and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.
Based upon the Supreme Court's statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.'s "assault weapon" and "large" magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.
Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA's case challenging D.C.'s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices." Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.
Judge Urbina rejected Heller's assertion that D.C.'s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a "strict scrutiny" standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
Urbina agreed that D.C.'s firearm registration scheme implicates the "core Second Amendment right," which, based upon the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court "suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter," and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.
Based upon the Supreme Court's statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.'s "assault weapon" and "large" magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.
p o w
The judge didn't even know what was called an "assault weapon" is not a machinegun...
But in any case, everyone expected this, the same happened with the Heller case until it went higher in the court system...
The NRA is going to win this one when it gets to the circuit and/or supreme court level.
Judge Urbina is the same one who ordered 17 Gitmo prisoners released into the USA and was over-ruled by the DC Court of Appeals. He is a judge who likes to try to operate with unchecked power. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath that this decision of his will be upheld. I suspect he is hoping for Obama's nomination to SCOTUS.
It is up to each state to make laws, within the Constitution, to their own state.
California never outlawed guns, and the national Constitution doesn't say anything about a waiting period, or a background check.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The drafters of the second amendment obviously assumed that thinking, breathing human beings would not need every potential "infringement" defined for them, and chose to make the blanket statement "Shall not be infringed" to cover ANY AND ALL infringements.
1) A waiting period - is an infringement, preventing a person's ability to secure a firearm in at the time THEY feel they need one ... it's not up to you or the US Government or the State of California to decide when THEY need one. The waiting period of 10 days prevents them from keeping and baring arms for those ten days, and that, BY DEFINITION is an infringement.
2) Carry Permit or License - implies the need for permission from some other authority, based on their criteria, and by definition, is an infringement.
3) Various proposals requiring training, insurance, standards are all forms of infringement. There are some legislators who have tried to pass a mandate requiring 1 Million Dollars of liability insurance in order to own a firearm .. which could infringe the right to keep and bare arms for those who cannot afford such insurance or fees for complying with the various permits and licensing requirements.
4) Any limitation on make model or calibre is an infringement. Banning a type of riffle for example is a gun ban ... and does infringe on the rights of those who's only weapon might be the type banned.
5) Classifying any citizen as not eligible to own a firearm is an infringement. No where in the second amendment does it state, "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed ... except ...." There is no "except" in the statement ... there is no qualifier or disqualifier in the language.
Just like the 5th Amendment ... you have the right to refuse to testify against yourself in a criminal proceeding ... it doesn't say if you are innocent or guilty ... it's no selective ... it covers the innocent and the guilty. It's there to protect the innocent, not reward the guilty .. even though it does protect the guilty too ... it's just the cost of freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
IF ANYONE CAN SHOW ME ANY STATE THAT OUTLAWS GUNS, ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE DO SO.
I'm not talking about assault rifles, where you can buy the exact same gun, without all of the military bling bling on it, I'm talking about you can't buy guns, period.
Though not a state, prior to the recent supreme court ruling, the District of Columbia had an outright ban on guns, while also enjoying a high position on the list of most violent crimes and murder.
But why hide behind such a false argument? Because to support false arguments you need to, that's why. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about outright bans as the definition of infringement ... this is your false argument, and it won't work!
Illinois (Obama land) has been working feverishly for years to have a total ban on firearms .. many states unfriendly to the 2nd amendment have engaged in many attempts to ban most guns .. including semi-automatics that make up the vast percentage of modern guns.
Oh yeah baby ... the gun grabbing spirit is willing but the flesh has been weak ... and for the most part, it is the liberal democrats who have historically been the most flagrant of the gun grabbers.
Obama is a extreme leftist gun grabber himself, and always has been, as has been his minions like Eric Holder, a long time, unapologetic anti 2nd Amendment, anti-American scumbag.
There is NOTHING these guys want more (except maybe our money) than our guns ... why? Because they are SUPREME CRIMINALS and they KNOW sooner or later the fools will one day get smart .. and they don't want them getting smart and armed at the same time.
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.
) blah blah. All they want is for us to 'submit' to fingerprinting, retinal scans, government controlled 'training and qualification', phsyc tests, registration and catalouging of our firearms in a central database, turn in our 'assault weapons' and handguns (we don't NEED these types of firearms) and the list goes on. Yea, sounds like support for our right to bear arms to me. Doen't sound like any infrigment is being proposed. Hell, it's all just "common sense" right?
