Defending The Second Amendment and The Constitution

[noknobs]

It says "seem to."

Ah, semantics. Whatever. I could point out that I also used "seems" in my post but then you'd counter that in one sentence I didn't use "seem" and then we'd waste another few hours of our life debating about "seems".

 

[Denny Crane]

It says that while murder has been on the decline, mass shootings is on the rise.

That's what I was responding to.

I'm not trying to pick apart your statements based upon semantics. I'm interested in the facts so I looked into whether mass shootings is on the rise.

 

[MARIS61]

The gov't hasn't suggested completely getting rid of guns, you'll still have the ability to bear arms...

Crawl out from under that rock and do a little research.

The universal and openly stated goal of every major gun-control lobbyist and every major gun-control advocate currently in office is the total elimination of un-registered, privately-held guns in America.

 

[RR7]

Crawl out from under that rock and do a little research.

The universal and openly stated goal of every major gun-control lobbyist and every major gun-control advocate currently in office is the total elimination of un-registered, privately-held guns in America.

While I doubt it, that still doesn't eliminate all guns. crawl out from under the rock and do a little better reading, perhaps?

 

[Denny Crane]

While I doubt it, that still doesn't eliminate all guns. crawl out from under the rock and do a little better reading, perhaps?

Read this:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/feinstein-to-reveal-gun-ban-legislation-in-january/

Feinstein to Reveal Gun Ban Legislation in January

If Feinstein’s legislation is any indication, many are saying that up to 75 percent of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with 50 percent of all long guns and with anything that looks like a military-style weapon.

(death by a thousand cuts, indeed)

 

[RR7]

I forgot when 75% and 50% of something actually meant ALL. Maybe you have an article or video for that, too.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://americablog.com/2012/12/its-time-to-ban-guns-completely.html

479 people cared enough to click on the facebook like button on the page. Another 502 posted in the comments section.

 

[RR7]

there's also:

Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactmen

they're taking all the guns!

 

[Denny Crane]

I forgot when 75% and 50% of something actually meant ALL. Maybe you have an article or video for that, too.

You think they're going to stop with the one law?

Great. Hopefully they'll only pass the one tax hike bill.

 

[RR7]

http://americablog.com/2012/12/its-time-to-ban-guns-completely.html

479 people cared enough to click on the facebook like button on the page. Another 502 posted in the comments section.

and 50 million! people cared enough to like justin bieber.

 

[RR7]

You think they're going to stop with the one law?

Great. Hopefully they'll only pass the one tax hike bill.

putting into law that they should be registered, and tracked after they are passed from owner to owner sounds ok to me. Some think it's somehow a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. So be it.

 

[Denny Crane]

See post #36

 

[RR7]

See post #36

I agree. Problem is right now they are transferring properly, because what do they really have to do? Is it too much to have them register without it being against the constitution somehow?

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree. Problem is right now they are transferring properly, because what do they really have to do? Is it too much to have them register without it being against the constitution somehow?

Progressives whine about the gun show loophole. There is no such loophole. As it stands now, I can go buy a gun and sell it to you directly without any background check. Background checks are a typical govt. waste of money program.

What I propose is to hold the buyer very responsible for what happens to his (or her) gun.

The real problem is the bad guys don't play by the rules. If my proposal were passed, all the honest people would register their new guns when purchased. The registration would transfer, like a pink slip, to a buyer - otherwise the original owner would still be on the hook (and wouldn't allow unregistered transfer). But you go buy a gun collection and then it's "stolen," what then? It could be that you just (on purpose) illegally armed a dozen bad guys.

I don't think anyone says laws requiring registering a gun is a violation of the 2nd.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't think anyone says laws requiring registering a gun is a violation of the 2nd.

Yes, pretty much everyone who understands the meaning of the word "infringement" is against registration. The Second Amendment is first and foremost a guarantee of the right to defend yourself and your countrymen from a potential scenario where our government has gone bad. Being forced to tell said government exactly what arms you have, and having to ask permission to acquire them in the first place, are both infringements. They also defeat the whole purpose of having a Second Amendment. Nothing remains except the door-to-door arms roundup.

 

[RR7]

^see Denny. And I've seen it more and more in comments online, and facebook, etc. registering guns is somehow a 2nd amendment violation. Are these same people feeling like the inability to yell out I Have a Bomb in an airport in an infringement on their freedom of speech? In that ANYTHING hindering it is wrong? It's fucking ridiculous.

 

[oldguy]

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms, and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace, such as on these helpless Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto.

All hell broke loose on Nov. 10, 1938: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples." "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away.

Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.

If not the Jews, why couldn't this be ANY group that the government wants to vilify? Like rich people, or black people, or Muslim people, or Latino people, or......?

Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.

Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.

Armed citizens were hurting the Nazis, who took the sternest measures. The Nazis imposed the death penalty on a Pole or Jew: "If he is in unlawful possession of firearms, . . . or if he has credible information that a Pole or a Jew is in unlawful possession of such objects, and fails to notify the authorities forthwith."

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

So, in short, fuck yes it concerns gun owners when they are required by law to tell the government where each weapon in the country is.

Go Blazers

 

[oldguy]

Over the years, I've taken perhaps 100 people, who were all scared to death of guns, out shooting. In every single case (except 1), they had a great time, and came away with a new appreciation for guns.

The one case where I failed was a young lady who picked up a 12 ga. shotgun while I was loading a different gun. I told her she should work her way up to the shotgun by shooting some guns that didn't kick as bad as the 12 gauge. She really wanted to shoot at the clay targets a buddy was throwing. I foolishly allowed her to shoot it, and the kick scared her so badly that she wouldn't touch another gun that day.

I did get her to go with me again a couple of years later, after her home was broken into. We started with a .22 and worked up to the shotgun, and even this lady came around. She went out a week later and bought a handgun for home protection, and signed up for training. We still go to the range and shoot to keep her confident enough to use the gun safely. It would be a bad idea for a home invader to choose her house now.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, pretty much everyone who understands the meaning of the word "infringement" is against registration. The Second Amendment is first and foremost a guarantee of the right to defend yourself and your countrymen from a potential scenario where our government has gone bad. Being forced to tell said government exactly what arms you have, and having to ask permission to acquire them in the first place, are both infringements. They also defeat the whole purpose of having a Second Amendment. Nothing remains except the door-to-door arms roundup.

The government should not be in a positon to deny anyone a gun. Maybe people who've committed crimes, as they don't have full rights of citizenship anyhow.

While I am a firm believer we should be sticking as close to the constitution as possible, it's also clear to me that there are no absolute rights described. You have free speech, but you can be thrown in jail for assault or sued for libel. You can only shout "fire" in a crowded theater if you're willing to accept the consequences.

SCOTUS has ruled twice on the 2nd amendment being a right for all. They suggest that licensing and registration is perfectly constitutional.

 

[Denny Crane]

^see Denny. And I've seen it more and more in comments online, and facebook, etc. registering guns is somehow a 2nd amendment violation. Are these same people feeling like the inability to yell out I Have a Bomb in an airport in an infringement on their freedom of speech? In that ANYTHING hindering it is wrong? It's fucking ridiculous.

I should have said, "nobody who matters..." No offense to anyone here, but we're not very influential among the governing class - and those people do know registration is constitutional.

In fact, when D.C. had its outright ban thrown out by SCOTUS, they immediately complied with the ruling and implemented registration and requires people who want one in their home to register the gun with the city. That's not going to get thrown out.

The government is going to have to be careful about how they implement registration. If they make the process overly cumbersome as to effectively prevent people from being able to own guns, then I think SCOTUS will step up and make them fix it.

The overly cumbersome bit is something everyone should be concerned with.

 

[Denny Crane]

Over the years, I've taken perhaps 100 people, who were all scared to death of guns, out shooting. In every single case (except 1), they had a great time, and came away with a new appreciation for guns.

The one case where I failed was a young lady who picked up a 12 ga. shotgun while I was loading a different gun. I told her she should work her way up to the shotgun by shooting some guns that didn't kick as bad as the 12 gauge. She really wanted to shoot at the clay targets a buddy was throwing. I foolishly allowed her to shoot it, and the kick scared her so badly that she wouldn't touch another gun that day.

I did get her to go with me again a couple of years later, after her home was broken into. We started with a .22 and worked up to the shotgun, and even this lady came around. She went out a week later and bought a handgun for home protection, and signed up for training. We still go to the range and shoot to keep her confident enough to use the gun safely. It would be a bad idea for a home invader to choose her house now.

Go Blazers

This anecdote is likely to be true for a hundred million americans, if not more. Those who want to outright restrict gun ownership and ban certain guns don't seem to consider this.

 

[oldguy]

Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.

Janet Reno 1993

 

[oldguy]

A question for folks that want more gun control. If they ban legally purchased 'assault rifles' and 'high capacity' magazines, should the people that bought them be compensated for giving them up?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

A question for folks that want more gun control. If they ban legally purchased 'assault rifles' and 'high capacity' magazines, should the people that bought them be compensated for giving them up?

Go Blazers

There's a buy back program in most proposals I've seen.

I don't favor banning any gun that is available already.

 

[oldguy]

There's a buy back program in most proposals I've seen.

I don't favor banning any gun that is available already.

I suppose they could just print up another $50B or so.

Go Blazers

 

[RR7]

There's a buy back program in most proposals I've seen.

I don't favor banning any gun that is available already.

grandfather clause.

 

[oldguy]

grandfather clause.

What does that mean?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

I suppose they could just print up another $50B or so.

Go Blazers

$50B is chump change. They are actually proposing a $1T coin.

 

[RR7]

What does that mean?

Go Blazers

no new ones made, but the ones owned currently are still allowed.

 

[oldguy]

I'm disappointed that none of the gun control advocates are responding to what I think are some of the serious problems with gun control.

Be that as it may at least, PLEASE STOP TELLING GUN OWNERS THAT NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE THEIR GUNS.

The problem is that, because you are willing to give up your rights, it makes me give up my rights. If you insist on puking up the koolaid, please tell me why I should believe you instead of what our leaders have been saying for fucking decades:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles"
Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think — I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
President Bill Clinton, on the Brady Bill, August 11, 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!"
New York, Rep Charles Schumer.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.”
Janet Reno, 1991

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned."
U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio

"Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none."
U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."
U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
U.S. Senator. Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"Mr. Speaker, I still believe that the best way to control handguns is to ban them outright."
U.S. Representitive Cardiss Collins, Democrat from Illinois

"You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis, June 16, 1986 (and 1988 Democratic nominee for President)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by the Associated Press, November 18, 1993

"In fact, only police, soldiers — and, maybe, licensed target ranges — should have handguns. No one else needs one."
Michael Gartner, president of NBC News, in The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1991

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"These automatic, semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons, they really have no place in our society."
Al Gore, Larry King Live, September 17, 1999

So, all you folks that say I shouldn't worry about the government wanting to ban my guns. Why should I believe one word of that nonsense?

Go Blazers