If Machine Guns are illegal

You tell too many lies, accusing me of not wanting criminals prosecuted or wanting felons to have guns, and those are just two lies.

 

What good is gun control, when criminals do not buy guns in gun stores ?

 

Cite the post number

 

Well it leads to low gun deaths....like in nyc

 

The point remains that legislators can restrict gun rights. They don't have carte blanche as evidenced by decisions knocking down statutes that were thinly disguised attempts to all but gut the 2nd. We see similar behavior by pro-lifers in passing legislation to close abortion clinics.

Open and/or concealed carry are not true "rights." You have to justify them and maintain support for them outside your political base.

 

If we have the right to bear arms, how can the government block both open and concealed carry?

 

Give me the name of the person I responded to with that post. It wasn't you doc

 

That doesn't mean the typical American cares about what the Founding Fathers thought. I taught American history, so I'm not talking about myself.

The Founding Fathers business isn't straightforward. There are matters they never considered directly, like managing the electromagetic spectrum or dealing with weapons of mass destruction. Still, I think we should consider original intent.

If we ignore the rule of law--elected officials and our courts--we don't have a democracy and the idea of "rights" will be meaningless.

You're the one who appears to be challenging the rule of law. It will be average Americans who have to insist people play by the rules. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."​

They took the business of revolution seiously. They wouldn't have acted over a single issue like gun rights.

I taught American history. You're in over your head.

 

SCOTUS has interpreted the 2nd to be a right that can be modified, defined, and limited by statute.

 

No need. The cites indicated what the court was thinking on gun control issues.

 

I was responding to the claim all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

 

Obviously a doddering elderly person that stabs the air, trying to kill invisible slugs, should not be handed a knife or worse, a gun.

No longer an issue of "The Second Amendment" but an issue of not handing a Mental Defective, a firearm or car keys.
It is not a Rights issue.

 

I hate to say it, Dr. Who, but you are wrong. Vegas giants HAS advocated for less enforcement of the laws. She feels that if enough children are murdered the better our chances of getting gun control.

When discussing Nickolas Cruz, Broward County public defender, Howard Finkelstein was quoted as having said about Cruz:

“If this isn’t a person who should have gotten someone’s attention, I don’t know who is. This was a multisystem failure.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.html

BEFORE Cruz was ever in the news, I was lobbying to put a system in place that would hold ONE agency is accountable to make sure nobody fell through the cracks. It's cheap, easy, and would have prevented Cruz's rampage. Vegas giants opposed it every time I mentioned it. He'd rather see the kids die than to put a system in place that would detect them and keep the most dangerous off the streets. Her moral and ethical standards are the lowest of any human being I've ever heard of.

 

Gun control laws ARE unconstitutional and you could do a much better job by spending that money on preventative measures.

All of this background check B.S. only tells you certain things about a person's past. It did not work with Nickolas Cruz because he was generating a record that was being ignored AND then trashed the day he turned 18.

IF you get people the help they need when they have a problem and you do not turn people you know you cannot trust back into society, then there is no reason for denying them their Rights (that the government did not grant in the first place.)

 

There IS a common denominator between virtually all mass shooters (save of political jihadists): They are called SSRIs.

Not everybody that takes SSRIs will commit a mass shooting - or maybe not even a violent act

Not everybody that is on SSRIs should have been prescribed them

What we do know is that are certain indicators that tell us a person who does certain things AND is on SSRIs and / or under the care of mental health professional needs not be running amok in society. Now, watch how our board troll twists that one around.

 

We're back to the same place and that's SCOTUS allowing the government to limit gun rights.

I see the requirement of a gun free zone around schools as a rather absurd law in much the same way as I see some attempts to way over regulate abortion clinics. SCOTUS lets these absurd laws to stand because they don't impact the basic right of a woman to obtain an abortion or a citizen to possess firearms. What are we thinking when we support political grandstanding by elected officials using the law to harass citizens exercising their rights? How in the hell is someone supposed to avoid every school when carrying a firearm? Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to exercise her abortion rights as she sees fit?

 

Posted in wrong thread. Deleted.

 

So you don't know that dicta isn't binding? Jesus. And you want to set national policy? You want to dictate what my rights should be?

 

No, they aren't. Laws that make it illegal for a felon to possess a firearm are not only constitutional but strongly supported across the political spectrum.

While I support the law banning felons from possessing firearms, I would prefer to see it applied to types of felons. That said, I agree that focusing on prevention makes more sense. How is a law abiding citizen supposed to comply with a law that says he can't carry within 1000 feet of a school?

I don't agree on Cruz. We should have laws that would have allowed police to seize any weapon in his possession.

Look, I don't think people with declining mental and physical skills should be driving a car, but I submit taking vehicles out of their hands is sufficient protection for the public. We can't be locking up every senior who should no longer drive a car.

 

With due process! He was holding a gun to people's heads, he had been involved in numerous domestic violence related incidents, and he had been hauled off to a mental institution by the cops.

In Georgia he would have lost the right to own/buy weapons for five years as a result of staying at a mental institution even if he had gone willingly.

They intentionally allowed this violent/dangerous/mentally ill AR owning kid to remain a threat to society by not locking him up or pressing charges even AFTER he was threatening to kill people with his AR! Violating the Constitutional rights for everyone ELSE by doing away with due process is NOT the answer, in fact it is just plain evil. They had plenty of laws they could have used but they didn't want to do anything about this threat (which conveniently fit in perfectly with the Sheriff's anti-gun agenda).

 

Our current laws are inadequate to the purpose. You can not have lax gun laws and low gun deaths. That place does not exist

 

Calling people felons and depriving them of their Rights is absolutely unconstitutional.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Constitutionally speaking, once a person has paid their debt to society, they must be returned to their positions as freemen.

As for Nicolas Cruz, he could have been rehabilitated or contained. Like Finkelstein said "it was a multisystem failure."

I never said anything about locking up seniors to keep them from driving cars. Where are you getting these analogies from?

 

Just show us where this system is working currently to reduce gun deaths ANYWHERE ON EARTH. Is it Fantasyland? LOL

 

Gun control laws ARE preventative