"What Scares Elitists? Civilians Own 70 Times More Guns Than U.S. Police and Military Combined"

Interesting that you ask that, because it indicates a lack of understanding about how political systems change.

Obviously it was forced on those who opposed it by those who favored it. I don't know where you're going with this.

In what way is the fact that, after a bloody civil war with almost 2 million dead, the winning side takes away the guns from the losing side comparable to anything in the current reality of the United States.

You have me at the edge of my seat waiting for your answer. Not because I expect you to have one, but just to see you struggling to come up with a strawman that doesn't look too ridiculous.

UK, Germany and Japan exhibit less tendency to kill people when seen in a historical context?????

Wow! That certainly does away with any historical context involving the British wars and Conquests, the Japanese empire and... need we even mention Germany's history?

In any case, even though your absurd response might make it seem otherwise, the fact that my question is legitimate. And I know much of it probably has to do with the number of weapons, as well as with the fear and hate of others (especially foreigners) that the right has managed to implant in our population. But with a better thought-out response than yours it might have even been possible to come up with more contributing factors.

 

Oh... the old Red Herring. You have the Constitutional right to drive a car, and get on an airplane. It was given by law, just as the federal right of individuals to own a gun for any reason was included into our laws by the Supreme Court in 2008. It's how our system works.

 

Travel by motor vehicle is a privilege granted by government. It is not a constitutional right.

 

Exactly. Judges <> unelected bureaucrats. That's the contradiction.

You tripped on your own strawman.

 

Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 u. s. 35 (1867)

 

Right at the very top of your citation.

1. A special tax on railroad and stage companies for every passenger carried out of the state by them is a tax on the passenger for the privilege of passing through the state by the ordinary modes of travel, and is not a simple tax on the business of the companies.

Privilege, not right.

Furthermore, the united state supreme court decided otherwise in another matter forty nine years later.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/242/160

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court:


The New Jersey Automobile Law of 1908 (P. L. 1908, p. 613) provides in substance that no person, whether a resident or nonresident of the state, shall drive an automobile upon a public highway unless he shall have been licensed so to do and the automobile shall have been registered under the statute; and also that a nonresident owner shall appoint the secretary of state his attorney upon whom process may be served 'in any action or legal proceeding caused by the operation of his registered motor vehicle within this state against such owner.' The statute fixes the driver's license fee for cars of less than thirty horse power at $2, and more than thirty horse power at $4. It fixes the registration fee at $3 for cars of not more than ten horse power; $5 for those from eleven to twenty-nine horse power; and $10 for those of thirty or greater horse power. Both license fees and registration fees, whensoever issued, expire at the close of the calendar year. The moneys received from license and registration fees in excess of the amount required for the maintenance of the motor vehicle department are to be applied to the maintenance of the improved highways. Penalties are prescribed for using the public highways without complying with the requirements of the act. The material portions of the statute are copied in the margin.

Further.

17. No person shall hereafter drive an automobile upon any public highway in this state, unless licensed to do so in accordance with the provisions of this act. No person under the age of sixteen years shall be licensed to drive automobiles, nor shall any person be licensed to drive automobiles until said person shall have passed a satisfactory examination as to his ability as an operator. . . . There shall be two classes of drivers' licenses. Those authorizing the licensee to drive cars of less than thirty horse power shall be of the first class, and those authorizing the licensee to drive cars of thirty and greater horse power shall be of the second class. The annual license fee to be charged shall be $2 for drivers of the first class, and $4 for drivers of the second class.

This matter was reaffirmed eighteen years ago.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”   In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place.   The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.   See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979);  Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).

In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license.

Travel in general is a right. Travel by motor vehicle is a governmental privilege.

 

Great of him to save that innocent child from those kidnappers.


------------------------------



White supremacist terrorists kill cops:




http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ers_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html



''The death of anti-racism protester Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia on Aug. 12 is one of the most high-profile examples of white extremist violence in the United States since Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. But though not each incident makes national headlines, a tally kept by the Southern Poverty Law Center indicates that the murder of law enforcement officials and innocent civilians by race obsessives, anti-government paranoiacs, and other believers in white fringe movements has been depressingly common in the two decades since Timothy McVeigh's attack. Below (taken from SPLC's records, confirmed by outside news accounts, and supplemented with additional research) is a list of 35 deadly attacks since Oklahoma City—comprising a total of 74 victims—carried out or believed to have been carried out by white extremists.""


more





Why are right wing extremists so anti-America, hate filled, and treasonous???

 

So let me get this straight. In this scenario, the government declares war on all US citizens? That's impossible. Obviously those fighting will be a subset of US citizens. And likely, a minority, probably a vast one. The US government isn't going to let them get in the way of critical infrastructure. They will move to secure it. These "fighters" will largely be pushed to remote areas where infrastructure isn't an issue. See any modern war for reference. And if enough of them did manage to take over and entire city, then yes, some collateral damage would be worth it. See the assaults on ISIS as reference for that. Don't tell me Iraq didn't destroy overpasses and electrical infrastructure in their assault on ISIS.

 

The pic of "antifa" beating a police officer is a well-known fake.

 

I'd be more impressed by the large amounts of guns if they'd ever actually been used to secure rights in the US.

Instead, I see a gun-happy right-wing adamantly supporting a prison-for-profit system, the "War on Drugs", a biased "justice" system, the "Patriot Act", as well as the erosion of voting rights.

 

They are. Every day.
In fact, according to the rabidly anti-gun VPC, they are so used 8x more often than to commit murder and 3x more often than to commit suicide.

 

You have a Constitutional right to drive *YOUR* car on *YOUR* property. You have a right to fly *YOURSELF* in *YOUR* property, i.e. an airplane.

You do *NOT* have a Constitutional right to drive your car on public roads without meeting the safety requirements to do so. There are other people on the road and their rights have to be respected by you.

You simply do not have a Constitutional right to demand that someone else let you use their private property. If you did you wouldn't have to actually own anything. You could demand someone let you live in their house, to let you use their tools, their food, etc. Using a privately owned airplane is no different. Airlines can ban you from using their aircraft unless you meet every one of their rules. You have no *right* to demand any thing.

The right to keep and bear arms is a *natural* right. The SC just recognized that right. It goes back to the 9th Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The federal government does not have to recognize *any* of our natural rights in order for us to retain them.

 

But it is BUREAUCRATS that put people on the terrorist watch list, not judges!

You are tripped up by your own argument!

 

"Right to travel" refers to the right to go where you want absent the need to seek permission from the state.
The right to drive on the interstate does not exist.

 

Are you serious?

That is as desperate an attempt as I have ever seen anybody to win an argument at any cost. The reason why that is at the "very top" is that usually the arguments of each part are explained "at the very top". And that was Nevada's position.

"Having determined that the statute of Nevada imposes a tax upon the passenger for the privilege of leaving the state or passing through it by the ordinary mode of passenger travel, we proceed to inquire if it is for that reason in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.​

And SCOTUS ruled...(drum roll...)

"We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states. "​

Translation: Nevada lost!

And I could bring many similar cases that uphold that the . But desperation to win a debate should never trump intellectual honesty.

 

Why should that scare elitists? I'd think they would have some of the coolest guns around.

 

Peace. That's what scares 'em.

 

Quite serious.

You are free to bring up whatever cases are desired to make a point. However nothing changes the fact that the united state supreme court, as well as other appeals and circuit courts, have ruled to the contrary, that travel by motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege granted by government, not a constitutional or fundamental right.

 

______
No one said they didn't have guns. However, I suspect the majority of anti-gunners would not own guns.
Then again many of the elitist anti-gunners hire others to protect them with guns. On the other hand most anti-gunners wouldn't know which end is the business end of a gun.

 

Can't make any moeny off peace. Near to drive up the fear index to make mooney.

 

Oh. So I guess the Crandall vs. Nevada decision that I cited concluded that you have a Constitutional right to drive *YOUR* stagecoach and*YOUR* train from state to state, right?

So funny!

BTW, even here you have it exactly backwards. Traveling is a right. Driving is a privilege. At least it is here in Florida

 

Follow the thread....

 

This is exactly right.
Regardless of where you come from or where you are going, a state can require you to have a license in order to drive on its roads.

There's a deliberate dishonest disconnect here, trying to equate the general right to travel with the specific right to drive in public roads.