Which gun control laws do you support? Laws which prohibit felons and those convicted of misdemeanors of domestic violence from owning guns? Bans on machine guns? How do you justify supporting some gun control laws but not others?
I support constitutional limits only. While seized under the 4th amendment (being investigated actively. Such as at a traffic stop) cops may temporarily seize your arms. When the stop is complete that power evaporates. If taken in with probable cause ones arms on them may again be held pending the outcome. If convicted one obviously does not have the right to be armed while in custody. If released on conditional parole a condition may be no firearms. Once parole is complete however no excuse remains for denying them their rights. Voting, firearm ownership, you name it, once off paper they must be returned. A similar process exists for adjudicating someone mentally unfit, however I support a reform of this process to "get them off paper" as it were if psych pros can certify they are no longer a danger to themselves and others. If you want mandatory training regimes I support a reviving, with updates, of the original militia act.
"Unlike the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, the language of the Second Amendment is absolute: 'shall not be infringed.' If read as an individual right, criminals, convicted felons, pirates, or revolutionaries could all be armed in the District of Columbia or in the federal territories. Pirates could load up their ships on the Potomac River and sail out to sea. Hunters could trample through Yellowstone or some other national park, guns in hand. 85 Anyone might board a plane, gun in hand, or carry a weapon into Congress, the White House, or any other federal building. After all, what better place to exercise your Second Amendment rights, than in front of your representatives or even in the courts of justice? As absurd as this would be, such people could not be 'disarmed," at least until they began to commit a crime, if the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms. Taken to its logical extreme, we might argue that just as a federal felon, serving time, has some First Amendment rights to press, petition, and religion, or Eighth Amendment rights not to be subjected to cruel punishment, so too, a prisoner might claim some Second Amendment right. The Fifth Amendment allows the taking of liberty under some circumstances, while the Second, if read as an individual right, does not." https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3291&context=cklawreview The Second Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed without due process of law" so even disarming violent criminals is problematic if the RKBA is interpreted as an individual right severed from the preceding clause.
As if I have the right to storm the floor of Congress and express speech. What tripe. Property owners can restrict access to their property. That includes the federal government. Or a state government. Or a local government. Or a business. Etc. And a felon does have some 2nd amendment rights. They're allowed to defend themselves from assault. Part of the core right is self defense. What I'm saying is, after they're not incarcerated or on parole, there is no cause to keep them at that restricted level. You've exceeded the substantive due process guarantee of the 5th and 14th amendments by further denying them their rights after the punishment has been served. We should restore liberty of contract while we're at it
So no problems with banning open and concealed carry? Do the other amendments override the absolute language of the Second Amendment? I'm interested in input from other posters on this matter.
On the grounds of the courthouse or Congress? No, why would there be? In a private business? Same. What do you think the 5th amendment and 4th are about? Property can be seized and liberty curtailed upon a warrant backed by probable cause of a crime committed. These crimes are of course only those within the proper scope of powers of the government. (Not the reamed out version you find today) After which point there is counsel a trial a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment right to a trial by jury etc. If convicted ones liberty is curtailed during the sentence. The sentence must not be cruel and unusual ie you don't hang someone for stealing penny candies. I would hold that just as it is a violation of the 8th amendment to exile someone it is a violation of the 8th amendment to make them a stranger at home, to permanently deprive them of their liberty but leave them unincarcerated or executed. If it would be cruel and unusual punishment to execute them or jail them for life for a particular crime the same should apply to permanently severing their rights.
Then there does seem to be a conflict between a literal, individualistic interpretation of "shall not be infringed" and other amendments.
You've got to read what I write, without inserting your feelz. No, there is not. They may not craft laws infringing the right, that does not mean you cannot disarm someone seized under the 4th amendment or who has been duly convicted of a crime and is serving their sentence. It also says nothing about a property owner not having their own rights to their own property. You simply don't understand the concepts. This is why we need voting tests, because people just like you (and don't get me wrong there are people like you on any end of the spectrum, those on the wrong side of the dunning krueger effect) are the reason we can't have nice things.
Perhaps you can tell me a democracy on this planet that has already adopted this plan. It is so outlandish that it is laughable just on the face of it. LOL
Why are you so obsessed with what others do Vegas? Also: Do you even know what Dunning Kruger is? Like do you even get what I'm referencing? Or are you too far into the curve?
Notice how little attention this thread has gotten. Is it because deep down most gun apologists know that the Second Amendment is not really consistent with their views on gun control?
More like most of them ignore the two of you as trolls and I'm one of the only one's that still finds it amusing to swing by and flog you occasionally.
So you are a gun apologist ? Because I believe in - "The Right to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." Not gun control.
most gun banners/restrictionists fail to understand the tenth amendment. The founders knew there had to be some restrictions on GUN USE and those were left to the states
And here is where I dissent. The Founding Fathers were advocates of common sense in applications, Benjamin Franklin, for example. Restrictions are interpreted with too wide a latitude of discretion, is concealed carry in various places an unsafe act ? Why is it unsafe to carry in a Post Office ? We would admit, that indiscriminate shooting stuff and shooting in the air ala Cowboy movies, is patently unsafe, but to broaden those parameters to include holstered carry in many other places is burdensome and unreasonable. Hence, restrictions sound nice, howsoever, perhaps better would be restrictions on the restrictions, as comical as that may sound. Common sense control and restrictions, on common sense gun control, lol
I support the NICS background checks which prohibit felons,those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, dishonorably discharged from the military, and those deemed (by a court of law) to be mentally ill and a danger to self/society from owning guns. I would have no problem with Universal background checks if they could be done by private citizens (not just by FFL license holders). Your last question is just stupid. The only gun control I support is banning people who have lost their gun rights due to due process (which all of the examples I give before are based on). I don't believe that a machine gun ban is necessary. Any other gun control not based on losing rights due to due process is, IMHO, unconstitutional.
Considering the sheer lack of actual enforcement being demonstrated in the united states, even for deliberate violations, there is no logical point in supporting any firearm-related restrictions. Enforce them or get rid of them.
At least you can give a straight answer unlike some of the others. How do you think the laws could be better enforced?
So is it okay if the states ban concealed carry, have waiting periods and universal background checks? Are we able to find some common ground here?
bans on concealed carry serve no rational purpose if the ban extends to those without records I don't support any of those things because none of them have a rational purpose but a state may successfully argue it has the proper constitutional power to demand background checks. Waiting periods should be seen as unconstitutional no matter what government entity tries to impose them
