I have only the words you post here. You've suggested many restrictions on gun rights. You've suggested many violations of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms that it was intended to protect. How is NICS constitutional? Do we have background checks for all rights? Do we require a background check to vote? To write an editorial? To post on an Internet forum? Your proposal is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. You do not support the 2nd Amendment. Can you tell me any other right that requires a license or a tax? Do you pay a tax to vote? A license to write an editorial? Of course not. A tax or license to exercise a right is a violation of the Constitution. A tax or license to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Once again, you do not support the 2nd Amendment. First off, I've already pointed out that the NICS system is unconstitutional. But what you're proposing is an option, therefore a responsibility, for every gun seller to vet the person they're selling to. What this would create, then, is a system where gun owners who fail, by not using the option or by making an error in its application, will be sued and held financially accountable for the actions of those to whom they sell guns. It also creates a government database, effective even if non-specific, registration of who is buying guns. Your claim that sellers could not be held liable would not stand the test of time any more than the similar protection in FOPA 1986 has protected gun manufacturers who are being sued today. You're demonstrating that you're more of an authoritarian than a constitutionalist. Though significant penalties are a deterrent to crime, life without parole for shooting a gun, even during a crime, would clearly be deemed as cruel or unusual punishment. What about those same crimes without a gun? Murder with a knife? Robbery with a baseball bat? Is it less of a murder or robbery? We should allow murderers and robbers to walk the street with short sentences unless they used a gun? How did the gun make it a worse crime or more of a crime? We have that: "Amendment 2, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you, and all gun owners, would simply support that it is all we need. You can't be serious about this one. Can we apply it to you today for the laws you're proposing? You want a law to tell Congress they can't pass a law? And you claim to have lobbied for laws? I find your claim very doubtful and unsupported by your ignorance of the law and the Constitution. We already have a Constitution that states they can't pass a law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms and they ignore it. The Constitution provides for removal from office for violating the Constitution and they ignore it. Not that your proposal could pass constitutional review by a 5th grade civics class, but it would be ignored anyway. Who decides to take the guns? On the word of anyone, or even if it is on the word of a doctor, police, or family member, you're suggesting removing a person's property without due process for 10 days. You would require the States to bear the cost of defense but the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Federal Government cannot force the States to do anything that the Government does not fund. Once again, you demonstrate that you do not support or understand the Constitution. No one is required to enter a private gun-free zone. If you don't want to go somewhere without your gun, then don't go. While restricting the constitutional protections from gun owners in your other proposals, you also want to remove the control over private property from the owners of that property. You're proposing that private property owners be held accountable for the actions of criminals? What happens when the property is only worth $100,000? They still have to buy $5MM worth of insurance? the WIC, SNAP, housing, or other criteria should not be the criteria for anything; far too many people have those who don't deserve them or who are abusing them. On the other hand, Tench Coxe fought successfully to have the Federal Government provide standard arms to the militia so that every man would have a rifle if called upon to serve. But the purpose of those weapons were to arm the militia for federal service. I'm all for the government doing that now - not a handgun or any gun of choice for the home but an appropriate (M16 auto?) weapon for the defense of the nation and the Constitution. That they might use it for personal defense should not be an obstacle or a driving motivation. So, if we all agree to give up some rights, you promise not to try to take the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with you. Of course you make no such promise for any other right and no promise not to come back next year, as soon as the next school or mall shooting occurs, to start the compromise process all over again. No, you're not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. You're not a supporter of the Constitution. You can't possibly support that which you have not read and about which you have no understanding. The NRA is full of FUDDs who think the 2nd Amendment is about their hunting rights, even possibly their right to self-defense. That's not surprising because it was the founding mission of the NRA. Though the NRA has recognized the changing times and how critical it is to defend the 2nd Amendment. The NRA has grown in mission. Most FUDDs, though, are still stuck running around chasing some silly rabbit. So, Mr. Fudd, good luck with your rabbit but, please, stay away from my rights - all of them.
I believe you mean well, but where do you get that a court can sever anyone's rights? If they can sever your right to keep and bear arms, can they sever your right to free speech? Can they sever your right to freedom of religion? Can they sever your right to a fair trial or reasonable bail? Can they sever your right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment? Where do you get this severed rights stuff? I already posted that there's just one right that the Constitution provides for infringing based on crime and that's the right to vote.
Repealing the 2nd Amendment does nothing. The amendment neither grants nor creates the right to keep and bear arms. It acknowledges the right and it forbids government from infringing on the right. Should the amendment be repealed the right to keep and bear arms still exists and is still protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. You'd have to repeal them all or pass an explicit amendment blocking the right to keep and bear arms. Even then, the right would exist but would be infringed by tyrannical government.
The government can remove privileges that it grants but it cannot remove a right. It can, by force, interfere with my ability to exercise my rights but those rights still exist.
The point is clear. What you propose can be done to the right to keep and bear arms can also be applied to free speech and freedom of religion - or free trials or any other right. In fact, what many, in this thread and in the nation, fail to consider is that if we accept that the government created by the Constitution can appoint to itself powers or authorities not explicitly granted in the Constitution then they are not at all bound by the Constitution. That document becomes simply suggestions to a class of people who have made themselves rulers over us simply by the virtue of their guns and prisons and our fear of them. That's the very definition of tyranny. I accept no man as my natural master or master by birthright. I accept only that government that my forefathers agreed to and have, by their agreements, bound me to accept: the Constitution of the United States and the State in which I live - currently Oklahoma.
Taking away a citizens ability and right to protect themselves and their families doesn’t make us safe. It’s the exact opposite.
I guess it could at that. So what? The "right' to have guns is nowhere near as fundamental as speech or voting but some people must REALLY like hunting.
You're right. Free speech and religion are the first rights. Then comes the right to keep and bear arms - and not for hunting. It was very important to the Founders and came as the 2nd Amendment. Never forget, though, that without the Second, the First will fall very quickly and that is why we have the 2nd Amendment - to defend your right to speak your mind, not for hunting. Consider AiNTIFAcist in Oregon and elsewhere, who beat people for voicing their beliefs. When the 2nd Amendment is gone, the fascists on the left will eliminate all spoken speech with which they disagree.
Let us know when you amend the constitution. Until them, your unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding won't happen.
That's an odd thing to say. You are standing alone in a sea of men and women who say that it does. You are hung up on the word "infringement" is that right? In the real world, there is no such thing as an irreversible anything and in this particular example, it is embarrassingly childish and in the same vein as saying, "I got dibs". That's not how amendments work. That's your final word? So you spoke too soon at the beginning of that statement, huh, There is no sense what-so-ever in that statement.
I have already explained that I am waiting for you to settle down. Are you ready now? Can you handle it?
Your post shows your own lack of understanding. I am not alone at all; no constitutional scholar claims that the constitution creates the right; it simply acknowledges and protects an existing right. So, that is exactly how amendments work. You can remove the protection by amendment but you cannot remove the inalienable right. Read the 9th Amendment. Rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution in order to exist. Removing the enumeration does not remove the right. If you're not willing to actually read the 9th and 10th Amendments, in fact the entire Constitution and all of the amendments, it makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion. In any case, no, that's not my final word. I have no intention of shutting up until we put government back in the bottle that is the Constitution.
1. may not infringe 2. calling dibs 3. inalienable rights These are expressions found in kindergarten playgrounds and in houses of worship, such as "God has always been" and "He's everywhere" and "I got dibs on that seat". They only mean something to those who agree to play the game ... and note that the Joker is not 'inalienably' wild.
One who is procuring firearms for the purpose of transferring them to a prohibited individual is not a legal firearms owner, and their actions cannot be held against those who are legal firearm owners who do not engage in such actions.
It is from the fifth amendment of the united states constitution itself. Specifically the section holding that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with the populace being able to protect itself from harm, from the lowest of street-level criminals, all the way up to a corrupt government has decided the people no longer matter and has seen fit to being executing them en masse.
notice how you couldn't point out the contradiction again? Because I did, and so did everyone else reading.
notice how you couldn't point out the contradiction for a 3rd time in a row? Because I did, and so did everyone else reading.
