The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: Elderberry on August 10, 2019, 08:04:07 pm
-
Military.com By Richard Sisk 8/5/2019
President Donald Trump said Monday that he supported the so-called "red flag" laws on gun sales and ownership that have drawn criticism for their potential impact on the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans.
In a 10-minute national address, Trump pledged to act "with urgent resolve" to curb gun violence and prevent mass shootings in response to the killings of at least 31 people over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. "We can and will stop this evil contagion," Trump said.
"That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders" to keep weapons out of the hands of those who may pose a risk to themselves or others, Trump said.
Such laws could be used to "identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence and make sure those people not only get treatment, but, when necessary, involuntary confinement," Trump said. "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."
He said he had also directed the Justice Department to work with local authorities to develop "tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike."
In the absence of federal red flag laws, at least 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own versions which enable family members or police to obtain court orders blocking access to firearms for those who may be a risk to themselves or others.
More: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/05/trump-backs-red-flag-laws-could-impact-veterans-gun-ownership.html (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/05/trump-backs-red-flag-laws-could-impact-veterans-gun-ownership.html)
-
@sneakypete
Is this a "bald faced lie" as well?
-
Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President. :patriot:
Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.
-
Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President. :patriot:
Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.
*****rollingeyes*****
Trolls gonna troll.
-
Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President. :patriot:
Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.
How is punishing law abiding citizens and violating the Constitution "leadership"?
-
If someone helps a veteran with their VA benefits, the veteran can be reported to NICS. Just because someone helped them. It’s wrong on so many levels. And the weapons can be kept for up to a year, sometimes longer. It’s difficult to get them back, even if the situation that prompted it was only a temporary one.
Why does Jazzy hate veterans so much?
-
Getting all worked up due to an article that really doesn't tell us anything specific and is from six days ago *****rollingeyes*****.
-
Getting all worked up due to an article that really doesn't tell us anything specific and is from six days ago *****rollingeyes*****.
It's an important and really an aspect of the Red Flag laws that isn't talked about.
As an example...let's say I go to behavioral health to talk with someone about how do deal with an issue with a coworker in my unit...there's a series of questions you have to answer via computer when you check in for your appointment...and I happen to answer some of those questions (ex: "How often in the last 7 days have you felt no excitement about work" "How often in the last 7 days have you felt little joy in activities you normally enjoy) in a way that triggers in the computer and alerts my health provider...that could be used as the impetus to seize my guns and make it damn near impossible to get back.
All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation.
Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan? Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated?
What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal?
They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end? Where is the line drawn?
-
Also, what happens to a soldier that gets trapped in the red flag laws while still on active duty.
Are they then forbidden from carrying their assigned weapon while at the qualification range or in the field training?
-
Where does it end? Where is the line drawn?
Any constitutional red flag law will afford due process protections along the lines discussed by David French in a recent thread. That's how it ends. With due process - the foundational principle of the rule of law under our Constitutional republic.
And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings. Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.
-
And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings. Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.
When Conservatives ENGAGE and become part of the solution, there's a dead shooter.
Works for me.
-
Any constitutional red flag law will afford due process protections along the lines discussed by David French in a recent thread. That's how it ends. With due process - the foundational principle of the rule of law under our Constitutional republic.
And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings. Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.
Right so no line is drawn so at any time an anti-gunner like yourself can just move the bar on that and decide that anyone THEY determine unfit can their 2A rights stripped from them.
Got it.
BTW...if I were to fall victim to a Red Flag law how do you know if you send the cops to my house you've got all my guns?
-
BTW...if I were to fall victim to a Red Flag law how do you know if you send the cops to my house you've got all my guns?
Red law or no, you won't have all of mine, I'll tell you what... And boy, will I be pissed.
-
Red law or no, you won't have all of mine, I'll tell you what... And boy, will I be pissed.
Same here. On both counts.
-
If someone helps a veteran with their VA benefits, the veteran can be reported to NICS. Just because someone helped them. It’s wrong on so many levels. And the weapons can be kept for up to a year, sometimes longer. It’s difficult to get them back, even if the situation that prompted it was only a temporary one.
Why does Jazzy hate veterans so much?
Well, why does @Jazzhead object to conservatism so much?
-
Well, why does @Jazzhead object to conservatism so much?
No, see, HE'S the conservative. We're all what he calls extremists. *****rollingeyes*****
-
@sneakypete
Is this a "bald faced lie" as well?
@txradioguy
Time will tell.
Given his lifelong negotiating strategy is to keep his opponents off balance and surprise them,I will be convinced he is serious about it when he signs it into law. Until then it is nothing but "theater".
-
@txradioguy
Time will tell.
Given his lifelong negotiating strategy is to keep his opponents off balance and surprise them,I will be convinced he is serious about it when he signs it into law. Until then it is nothing but "theater".
He's also at times been a supporter of the AWB too. So you're right time will tell.
I just wanted to see what you'd say about this since you called me a liar yesterday for factually stating Trump supported Red Flag laws.
-
They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end?
Here's where it ends @txradioguy
Can be changed by a 5-4 Supreme Court Decision:
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)
-
Here's where it ends @txradioguy
Can be changed by a 5-4 Supreme Court Decision:
@Right_in_Virginia
The decision in Heller has nothing to do with red flag laws.
All Heller did was reaffirm what was already written in the Second Amendment. Despite what some people here claim...the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't just magically appear with the Heller decision. It was embedded in this country when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified.
And given the threats by Liberal Senators yesterday to the SCOTUS about changes they'll make to the court if they don't vote the "right way" on a 2nd Amendment Case before them right now just highlights how far the left and their facillitators will go to take away a fundamental right of everyone in this country.
It's also a perfect example of why we shouldn't be so willing to give up our guns.
-
[
All Heller did was reaffirm what was already written in the Second Amendment. Despite what some people here claim...the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't just magically appear with the Heller decision. It was embedded in this country when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified.
You are an ostrich with your head in the sand.
-
And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings. Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.
Obviously the solution to mass shootings is universal right to carry, the only course of action that offers any hope of regularly stopping these killers.
The left & others needs to 'engage' on this to be part of the solution, and not just their spew anti 2A nonsense.
-
You are an ostrich with your head in the sand.
@Jazzhead @txradioguy
It's awful big of you to admit that even an ostrich with it's head in the sand understands more than you.
-
@Jazzhead @txradioguy
It's awful big of you to admit that even an ostrich with it's head in the sand understands more than you.
I realized I knew more about the 2A the moment he hit send on his first post on the subject.
-
I realized I knew more about the 2A the moment he hit send on his first post on the subject.
Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.
-
Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.
Not without coming to take it from my cold dead hands.
-
Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.
You need to take a long hard look in the mirror and take that statement of yours to heart.
-
Not without coming to take it from my cold dead hands.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
*****rollingeyes*****
And I am by no means alone.
-
And I am by no means alone.
That's a line that many millions will not cross. Count on it!
-
That's a line that many millions will not cross. Count on it!
Behind every blade of grass...
-
That's a line that many millions will not cross. Count on it!
In this day and age...unless they're raising carrier pigeons right now, it will be impossible for gun-owners to form cells.
I saw what Janet Reno's DOJ did when they wanted your weapons. Kids burned alive.
We'd better not "...go quietly into the night".
-
In this day and age...unless they're raising carrier pigeons right now, it will be impossible for gun-owners to form cells.
I saw what Janet Reno's DOJ did when they wanted your weapons. Kids burned alive.
We'd better not "...go quietly into the night".
Those cells will form the instant the indiscriminate confiscations begin. Our side will not draw first blood.
-
Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.
And I say your eagerness to trample the rights of others will cause the loss of OUR precious rights. Yours, too. You are the one lacking in humility and intellectual horsepower here.
-
@txradioguy
All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation. Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan? Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated? What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal? They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end? Where is the line drawn?
I will tell you as I worked counseling/testing thousands of people. With universal background checks, your doctors will be contacted by the govn. Medical forms you fill out or questions answered by you and recorded will be provided to the govn.
If one has gone to someone like me, they will be contacted. Law said I had to give documents about a patient if he/she was sent to court. What I did to protect a patient from what he/she said, was, I didn't write it down. My memory was so good then, when a patient came the next week, I knew exactly where we left off the week before. I had no document about what a person said.
Exception: If a patient said he/she was going to kill someone, had a plan to do it, was going to do it, I was required to report that to law enforcement.
-
@txradioguy
All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation. Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan? Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated? What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal? They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end? Where is the line drawn?
I will tell you as I worked counseling/testing thousands of people. With universal background checks, your doctors will be contacted by the govn. Medical forms you fill out or questions answered by you and recorded will be provided to the govn.
If one has gone to someone like me, they will be contacted. Law said I had to give documents about a patient if he/she was sent to court. What I did to protect a patient from what he/she said, was, I didn't write it down. My memory was so good then, when a patient came the next week, I knew exactly where we left off the week before. I had no document about what a person said.
Exception: If a patient said he/she was going to kill someone, had a plan to do it, was going to do it, I was required to report that to law enforcement.
Yeah it has the potential from the start to punish those as you said "had no choice but to be treated?"
IIRC the same is true for soldiers who lost a leg or an arm and are doing rehab and recovery whether they stay on active duty or not after the event...there is some mandatory sessions with a shrink.
that can and beleive me will be used as justification to "red flag that soldier".
-
@Right_in_Virginia
The decision in Heller has nothing to do with red flag laws.
I agree. Heller is where the democrats will go to overturn your right to have a gun --- outside a state-run National Guard.
All Heller did was reaffirm what was already written in the Second Amendment.
This is really a split decision. Many on the other side believe the Constitution means exactly what it says: "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."
Despite what some people here claim...the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't just magically appear with the Heller decision.
So says you and five SC judges. What happens when it's them and five SC judges?
@txradioguy
-
I agree. Heller is where the democrats will go to overturn your right to have a gun --- outside a state-run National Guard.
They can try and they will fail. They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the roght of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published.
The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.
This is really a split decision. Many on the other side believe the Constitution means exactly what it says: "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."
Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written? Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?
So says you and five SC judges. What happens when it's them and five SC judges?
It doesn't matter. What matters is what the Constitution says. And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.
-
They can try and they will fail. They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the roght of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published.
The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.
Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written? Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?
It doesn't matter. What matters is what the Constitution says. And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Schools of Law are the biggest indoctrination centers in existence!
-
Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written? Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?
I get this @txradioguy … citizen army. But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state".
It doesn't matter. What matters is what the Constitution says. And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.
See, this is the problem. [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary). Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:
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."
One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.
Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns. Don't you dare -- you know they will.
Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020. Very carefully.
-
They can try and they will fail. They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the right of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published.
The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.
VERY minor quibble: The right to self defense has existed since the dawn of man. It's a "Natural Right," not to be granted or rescinded by hand of man.
Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written? Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?
It doesn't matter. What matters is what the Constitution says. And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.
I know the answer to that one... :raise hand:
-
I get this @txradioguy … citizen army. But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state".
See, this is the problem. [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary). Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:
I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?
Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.
-
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Schools of Law are the biggest indoctrination centers in existence!
The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.
-
The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.
Yeah! That's what I thought. Good to know others see it as well.
-
I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?
Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.
The part that @Right_in_Virginia and others here completely miss is the FACT that the 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT, not the people.
-
I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?
Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.
Perzackly, which is why it isn't a "Predicate Clause," it's an "Explanatory Clause."
-
The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.
That's true of all the Liberal Arts majors.
-
I get this @txradioguy … citizen army. But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state".
In Colonial times there was no formal organized Army like we think of today. If Washington needed to raise an army he looked to the state militias. They were the precursor to what we now know as the National Guard.
But even then the individual was responsible for the purchase and upkeep of their own personally owned weapon.
So well regulated and state had totally different meanings and purposes when that part of the 2nd Amendment was written.
See, this is the problem. [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary). Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:
Ummm yes it DOES speak to the individual. Right after the comma where it talks about the militia and the state it very clearly says:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
It doesn't get much clearer than that. If you don't see that then I'm not sure what version of the 2nd Amendment you're looking at quite frankly.
One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.
No it's not. And it's very naive to think that. All you're doing at this point is repeating the same jibberish that Jazzy is. Why I don't know.
Again Heller didn't extend any right. The right was already there. Heller reaffirmed that right.
I suggest you read ALL of Scalia's majority opinion.
Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns. Don't you dare -- you know they will.
They know they can't do it through the courts and they won't get it done by repealing the 2nd Amendment outright. If they could they would have either under Clinton or Obama. Fienstien said as much in 1994 when the Assault Weapons ban went into effect.
So they do it through all these red flag laws and registrations schemes. Or apply exceedingly high taxes to make it impossible for you and I to purchase a gun...which is in turn a defacto band and violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020. Very carefully.
Trump needs to do the same. He's voicing support for these Democrat born ideas of gun control and on top of that he's got Ivanka in the background on the phone to Republicans twisting arms to get support.
Trump is playing with re-election fire if he does even a tenth of what the Libs want.
-
That's true of all the Liberal Arts majors.
"Departments of Education represent the slums of any University"
Dr. Walter E. Williams
-
Trump needs to do the same. He's voicing support for these Democrat born ideas of gun control and on top of that he's got Ivanka in the background on the phone to Republicans twisting arms to get support.
Trump is playing with re-election fire if he does even a tenth of what the Libs want.
This is exactly how I said it to my Senator last week, for which I was accused of "bullying" her. "Stand fast, or you will lose next year" is what I said.
-
This is exactly how I said it to my Senator last week, for which I was accused of "bullying" her. "Stand fast, or you will lose next year" is what I said.
And sadly there are some willing to test that...at their own political peril...but still
-
And sadly there are some willing to test that...at their own political peril...but still
Those are the fools who believe the DeeCee press and the conversations at cocktail parties over their own voters.
-
I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?
Here's the reasoning @skeeter : The people are armed as part of a well-regulated militia for the purpose of defending the state (think National Guard).
One side of the 2A debate lays claim that there is no individual right to bear arms; the right is bestowed solely for the purpose of protecting the state, not the individual/family. The other side says: No. The 2A gives me the right to pack any gun(s) I want and take it (them), (concealed if preferred), wherever I go in the name of my inalienable right to self-defense.
The SC Heller decision upholds the 2nd position. The language in the Constitution does not.
Heller was won by a one vote majority. Heller could be overturned by the same margin. If Heller is overturned, in this current environment, all gun bets are off. :shrug:
-
Here's the reasoning @skeeter : The people are armed as part of a well-regulated militia for the purpose of defending the state (think National Guard).
One side of the 2A debate lays claim that there is no individual right to bear arms; the right is bestowed solely for the purpose of protecting the state, not the individual/family. The other side says: No. The 2A gives me the right to pack any gun(s) I want and take it (them), (concealed if preferred), wherever I go in the name of my inalienable right to self-defense.
The SC Heller decision upholds the 2nd position. The language in the Constitution does not.
Heller was won by a one vote majority. Heller could be overturned by the same margin. If Heller is overturned, in this current environment, all gun bets are off. :shrug:
This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.
-
I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?
Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.
Because when it was drafted, the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, so each individual state would have been free to determine the conditions on which individuals within the state could bear arms.
-
This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Because when it was drafted, the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, so each individual state would have been free to determine the conditions on which individuals within the state could bear arms.
And then there's that pesky mention of the individuals right to keep and bear arms right after the talk of militias and the state.
You know...the part that ends with "shall not be infringed"
-
This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.
"Solidarity?" LOL!
-
Because when it was drafted, the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, so each individual state would have been free to determine the conditions on which individuals within the state could bear arms.
We have had a "federal government" in name only for some time now. This is a National Government.
-
"Solidarity?" LOL!
That's really cold @Cyber Liberty
-
And I am by no means alone.
@roamer_1
@txradioguy
Neither is txradioguy,and we are armed and experienced.
-
And the RKBA crowd is not doing well in this arena, not well at all.
They'd do a lot better if only they'd attempt to respond constructively to the anger and frustration folks feel about a tsunami of mass shootings and gun violence. Adopting an absolutist position eschewing all willingness to be part of a solution is disrespectful to such folks, and is hardly the way to win their vote.
-
That's really cold @Cyber Liberty
What can I say? I'm in a mood. People lying about their desire to see me disarmed and at the mercy of predators do that to me. :shrug:
(I am not referring to you, I think. I'm talking about the fellow who's been calling me "paranoid" ever since he said he was afraid some yahoo like me would waltz around HIS public square.)
-
They'd do a lot better if only they'd attempt to respond constructively to the anger and frustration folks feel about a tsunami of mass shootings and gun violence. Adopting an absolutist position eschewing all willingness to be part of a solution is disrespectful to such folks, and is hardly the way to win their vote.
You mean, "If we would compromise more of our rights away, our rights will be safe." That's idiotic. Let the Rats compromise with me, and legalize full-auto sport rifles. Otherwise, I've proven that compromise on this issue is in reality just another leftward ratchet. It's not my problem you are impervious to the arguments laid before you on this forum.
My turn: *****rollingeyes*****
-
You mean, "If we would compromise more of our rights away, our rights will be safe." That's idiotic. Let the Rats compromise with me, and legalize full-auto sport rifles. Otherwise, I've proven that compromise on this issue is in reality just another leftward ratchet. It's not my problem you are impervious to the arguments laid before you on this forum.
My turn: *****rollingeyes*****
nailed it.
-
Here's the reasoning @skeeter : The people are armed as part of a well-regulated militia for the purpose of defending the state (think National Guard).
@Right_in_Virginia
Right, but oh so wrong.'National Guard', at the time, was a true citizen militia. 'Regulated' at the time meant 'well ordered' - IOW Well equipped. Since the militia obtained it's equipment from the citizens themselves - to include small arms, long arms, and cannons - The right to self defense is naturally inherent, because the arms reside with the citizens themselves.
In fact, while the history of the National Guard resides in the citizen militia, The National Guard itself is not a citizen militia anymore, but rather, a federalized state army - An army against the spirit and intention of the BOR and the 2nd Amendment, which being written to offset the formation of a federalized army - The BOR was written to assure the citizen militia - That is, the citizen himself - would not be displaced, subsumed, or overpowered by the newly created standing army... written specifically in fear of same.
So it is absolutely absurd to imagine the National Guard as the heir apparent of the 2nd Amendment. It resides completely and only in the inherent and natural right of every man himself, as granted by God.
Heller was won by a one vote majority. Heller could be overturned by the same margin. If Heller is overturned, in this current environment, all gun bets are off. :shrug:
All gun bets are off the minute there is universal registration, as hawked by your far left leaning president, at which point the threat you imply is made moot.
-
This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.
Exactly wrong. It is a threat, plain and simple.
-
Because when it was drafted, the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, so each individual state would have been free to determine the conditions on which individuals within the state could bear arms.
Wrong. It was written to offset the first standing army that was not citizen militia. There were no standing state armies.
-
And then there's that pesky mention of the individuals right to keep and bear arms right after the talk of militias and the state.
You know...the part that ends with "shall not be infringed"
That's right.
-
They'd do a lot better if only they'd attempt to respond constructively to the anger and frustration folks feel about a tsunami of mass shootings and gun violence. Adopting an absolutist position eschewing all willingness to be part of a solution is disrespectful to such folks, and is hardly the way to win their vote.
Wholly manufactured bullcrap.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Right, but oh so wrong.'National Guard', at the time, was a true citizen militia. 'Regulated' at the time meant 'well ordered' - IOW Well equipped. Since the militia obtained it's equipment from the citizens themselves - to include small arms, long arms, and cannons - The right to self defense is naturally inherent, because the arms reside with the citizens themselves.
Words mean things, and because English is a "living language," the precise meaning of the individual words have changed over time. One must bone up on the text of the Federalist Papers to understand the full context of the words in the Bill of Rights. Basically, it's "Because we need a well-supplied militia (Self-supplied at that), the individual RKBA must not be abridged," not what the brilliant lawyers say it means about it being some sort of vague communal right.
-
My turn: *****rollingeyes*****
You forgot suppressors. We need suppressors.
-
Wholly manufactured bullcrap.
The same manufactured attempt to stampede the people we've heard before, through the use of copious amounts of bullcrap.
-
You forgot suppressors. We need suppressors.
:facepalm:
I forgot. "Hearing Protection." The kind that's actually required of hunters in what little hunting is allowed now in England.
-
Words mean things, and because English is a "living language," the precise meaning of the individual words have changed over time. One must bone up on the text of the Federalist Papers to understand the full context of the words in the Bill of Rights. Basically, it's "Because we need a well-supplied militia (Self-supplied at that), the individual RKBA must not be abridged," not what the brilliant lawyers say it means about it being some sort of vague communal right.
That's right. People who can't read Chaucer as originally written should STFU. *****rollingeyes*****
And your translation is right on the money, as evidenced in the commentary of our Founders.
-
Words mean things, and because English is a "living language," the precise meaning of the individual words have changed over time. One must bone up on the text of the Federalist Papers to understand the full context of the words in the Bill of Rights. Basically, it's "Because we need a well-supplied militia (Self-supplied at that), the individual RKBA must not be abridged," not what the brilliant lawyers say it means about it being some sort of vague communal right.
Give that man a Nat Sherman cigar!!
:bullie smokin:
-
The same manufactured attempt to stampede the people we've heard before, through the use of copious amounts of bullcrap.
YEP. a regulation butt-ton of bullcrap, tamped down and full to the brim.
-
Give that man a Nat Sherman cigar!!
:bullie smokin:
Thanks! I'm on a roll today! I was afraid I might have burned off all the fuel with the Federal/National government thing...
-
I forgot. "Hearing Protection." The kind that's actually required of hunters in what little hunting is allowed now in England.
Why the heck do I need to wear earmuffs, eh?
*Note** That 'eh' is not because I am hard of hearing, but rather because I am too close to Canada.
POUTINE!!!
-
YEP. a regulation butt-ton of bullcrap, tamped down and full to the brim.
A Long Tonne at that.
-
Why the heck do I need to wear earmuffs, eh?
*Note** That 'eh' is not because I am hard of hearing, but rather because I am too close to Canada.
POUTINE!!!
LOL! I LOVE Poutine! "Hearing Protection" is what they call "Suppressor" in the name of the Bill that Turtle failed to get through. Your ear-muffs, but mounted on the muzzle of your rifle....
-
LOL! I LOVE Poutine! "Hearing Protection" is what they call "Suppressor" in the name of the Bill that Turtle failed to get through. Your ear-muffs, but mounted on the muzzle of your rifle....
I think its a plot to make us buy Pringles and tennis balls.
-
I think its a plot to make us buy Pringles and tennis balls.
Say, that's good stock for a spud-gun!
-
Because when it was drafted, the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, so each individual state would have been free to determine the conditions on which individuals within the state could bear arms.
Article VI Supremacy Clause says that’s not so.
-
Say, that's good stock for a spud-gun!
Small potatoes (HA! did you see what I did there? I crack myself up!).
It's nearly September.
We're fixin to go PUNKIN CHUNKIN! WOOOO!
-
Looks like some are fighting to include a literacy test for the purchase of a gun. They have a pretty good shot at winning this one.
:thumbsup:
-
Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President. :patriot:
Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.
Oh, he isn't wavering--HE'S SIDING WITH THEM.
-
You forgot suppressors. We need suppressors.
@roamer_1
Several decades too late for me,but young people could surely benefit from owning suppressors.
Think of a bill legalizing them without permits as a "public service bill".
-
@roamer_1
Several decades too late for me,but young people could surely benefit from owning suppressors.
Think of a bill legalizing them without permits as a "public service bill".
Dittos for me. I can't hear diddly squat.
-
Looks like some are fighting to include a literacy test for the purchase of a gun. They have a pretty good shot at winning this one.
Why is that @Right_in_Virginia ?? What has literacy to do with a right to defend oneself?
I know hillbillies that can't read a lick, but could shoot a fly off your nose without even thinking about it.
-
Several decades too late for me,but young people could surely benefit from owning suppressors.
Think of a bill legalizing them without permits as a "public service bill".
Yeah, way too late for me too... I never even wore earmuffs till in my 40's when I started realizing loss.
-
Why is that @Right_in_Virginia ?? What has literacy to do with a right to defend oneself?
Oh, good grief @roamer_1 You missed that this was tongue-in-cheekt?!? Hmm, maybe it's true.
Looks like some are fighting to include a literacy test for the purchase of a gun. They have a pretty good shot at winning this one.
-
Oh, good grief @roamer_1 You missed the insult?!? Hmm, maybe it's true.
Yep. I guess so... Still missed it. Care to elaborate @Right_in_Virginia ?
-
Yep. I guess so... Still missed it. Care to elaborate @Right_in_Virginia ?
I'd rather watch paint dry -- it's a better use of my time.
-
I thought the following, from the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School (one of the best sites around for finding good information on the law), was interesting enough to share:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
This reinforces, I think, the point I have been trying to make that the "individual rights" theory of the 2A is one of two competing theories that have each found favor with the SCOTUS at different times. The other view, the collective rights theory, is supported by the text and refuted by the later Heller Court's ruling. But a SCOTUS ruling can be overturned. The right therefore hangs by the thread of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority. And as vociferously as those on the right have been demanding that the SCOTUS overturn Roe v. Wade, many on the left demand the overturn of Heller in favor of the collective rights theory. A minor change in the composition of the Court is all that needs to happen for that view to potentially prevail, as it did in 1939.
So this election isn't about principles, it's about politics. Whatever your principles are, if you do not support GOP candidates you are enabling the demise of Heller. So @Right_in_Virginia is quite correct - it may take a constitutional amendment to abolish the 2A, but only a Dem victory in 2020 to abolish the 2A's "revitalization" by Heller.
-
So this election isn't about principles, it's about politics. Whatever your principles are, if you do not support GOP candidates you are enabling the demise of Heller. So @Right_in_Virginia is quite correct - it may take a constitutional amendment to abolish the 2A, but only a Dem victory in 2020 to abolish the 2A's "revitalization" by Heller.
What powdered wigs in paneled halls think about anything doesn't make it true... In fact, most often, far from it.
And you have no argument whatsoever with regard to the GOP. If the GOP is caving on universal registration, that action makes Heller incidental by comparison.
-
So this election isn't about principles, it's about politics. Whatever your principles are, if you do not support GOP candidates you are enabling the demise of Heller. So @Right_in_Virginia is quite correct - it may take a constitutional amendment to abolish the 2A, but only a Dem victory in 2020 to abolish the 2A's "revitalization" by Heller.
And yet, so many pro-gun conservatives are using the worn out "we'll just stay home on election day" strategy. It's almost as though they do not "get" how serious this election will be, especially for gun rights.
Good research, BTW @Jazzhead
-
And yet, so many pro-gun conservatives are using the worn out "we'll just stay home on election day" strategy. It's almost as though they do not "get" how serious this election will be, especially for gun rights.
Good research, BTW @Jazzhead
Too many politicians don't understand how important gun rights are to the general public. Without them, we are doomed so it won't matter at that point who is elected.
-
Oh, he isn't wavering--HE'S SIDING WITH THEM.
You're listening to everyone except the President @Smokin Joe
Donald J. Trump Retweeted
Laura Ingrahamâ€
Verified account @IngrahamAngle
"There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings," @jamesalanfox, the leading researcher on the topic, tells @nickgillespie. Podcast. https://reason.com/podcast/james-alan-fox-there-is-no-evidence-of-an-epidemic-of-mass-shootings/ … via @reason
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1161722176174563328/ffoAP2oU?format=jpg&name=600x314)
James Alan Fox: There Is No Evidence of an 'Epidemic of Mass Shootings'
The nation's leading scholar of mass shootings explains how media coverage of horrific events such as El Paso and Dayton stoke unwarranted fear and anxiety.
https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1161868292291616768
https://reason.com/podcast/james-alan-fox-there-is-no-evidence-of-an-epidemic-of-mass-shootings/
-
Too many politicians don't understand how important gun rights are to the general public. Without them, we are doomed so it won't matter at that point who is elected.
So vote your best interest. Or not. I'm really starting not to care. :shrug:
-
Looks like some are fighting to include a literacy test for the purchase of a gun. They have a pretty good shot at winning this one.
:thumbsup:
@Right_in_Virginia
Why? What does literacy have to do with it? Do you equate being illiterate with retardation?
Are there any other rights you don't want illiterate people to have?
-
I thought the following, from the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School (one of the best sites around for finding good information on the law), was interesting enough to share:
This reinforces, I think, the point I have been trying to make that the "individual rights" theory of the 2A is one of two competing theories that have each found favor with the SCOTUS at different times. The other view, the collective rights theory, is supported by ........
@Jazzhead
The other view, the collective rights theory, is supported by ........
"Collectivists". Sometimes it IS necessary to state the obvious
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Why? What does literacy have to do with it? Do you equate being literacy with retardation?
Are there any other rights you don't want illiterate people to have?
@sneakypete think about what Literacy tests are associated with.
She wasn’t saying anything complimentary or useful towards any of us.
-
@sneakypete think about what Literacy tests are associated with.
She wasn’t saying anything complimentary or useful towards any of us.
@txradioguy
I sometimes like for posters to refine their thoughts so there is no confusion about what they implied. Especially on a subject as controversial these days as illiteracy. I suspect that illiteracy is rare these days outside the Dim strongholds that used to be referred to as "ghettos" ,but not so rare for the generation that are now on SS.
The man that adopted me was illiterate,and his wife only had a 5th grade education. Neither of which was uncommon for people of their generation. He had to quit school in the 3rd grade to go to work at a boatyard as a laborer after his father died to help support his mother and 5 brothers and sisters. Later on,after he was married,he and my mother took in her nephew to raise after his parents were killed in a car wreck,and then adopted me maybe 10 years later. After I joined the army and left,they tried to adopt again,but were turned down due to age and illnesses.
The woman who raised me had a similar backstory. Her mother and father both died in the flue epidemic of 1918,and both she and her little sister were saved by the only social organization at the time that had the ability to help orphans,the KKK. The Klan put them both with a one-legged Civil War veteran who was having a tough time taking care of himself. She told me the way it was explained to her and him was "You need someone to cook,clean and help you around the house,and these little girls need a place to live. In return,you feed and clothe them and send them to school."
The Klan had to come back a year or so later and remind him of the deal he had agreed to,though. She never told me what led up to it other than he started drinking a lot,but she told me that one Friday night they showed up on horseback and carrying torches,and called him out in the yard and "laid down the law to him". According to my mother,the head Kluxxer told him "Old man,we have received word that you are not sending these little girls to school,and that you are not buying groceries and other items appropriate for little girls,but are spending most of your money on whiskey. If we ever hear of this happening again we will come back,and I will tie to to that tree in the corner of your yard,and beat you with a horsewhip until my arm gets tired." My mother told me they never again had a single problem with that old man right up to the day he died.
Anyhow,at the time my mother and father were children,it was not uncommon to see children AND adults that were illiterate because many children had to work to help support their families. That does NOT mean or even imply any of them were retarded.
I will grant you that these days illiteracy amongst the native-born is rare,but I suppose it must exist at some level.
Still,illiteracy isn't an issue in regard to voting rights these days. Even illiterate people have access to news via radio and tv,plus talking with their neighbors.
Retardation isn't really a problem in LEGAL voting because it's obvious these people can't cast an informed vote. Yes,I AM positive retards vote on a regular basis in Dim districts,but so do dead people,imaginary people,and even cartoon characters. This won't be stopped because the DNC doesn't want it stopped. IMHO,it could be fairly stated that "Retards are the base voters for the DNC."
-
@sneakypete think about what Literacy tests are associated with.
She wasn’t saying anything complimentary or useful towards any of us.
@txradioguy
I understand it is a BoZo NoNo to mention the word "illiteracy" today because the Tan Klan and their allies in the media claim it is always a code word slamming them,but it just ain't true.
There are more illiterate and poor white people in this country than there are black people,and always has been. Not to mention poor brown people.
I have heard the term "white trash" in reference to illiterate whites my entire life,and honestly don't remember much mention of blacks,one way or the other until after I was an adult and away from home. We just never had any problems with the local blacks,and they never had any problems with us.
And white people from the north have no trouble at all assuming that all working class whites in the south are "white trash" because we are not "sophisticated enough to live in a rat condo in NYC".
The white man that raised me was illiterate. Not because he was stupid,but because he had to quit school in the 3rd grade and go to work to help support his family. Couldn't read a word by the time he was an adult,and it was painful to watch him try to sign his name. He wasn't stupid,though,and he damn sure wasn't lazy.
-
@Jazzhead
"Collectivists". Sometimes it IS necessary to state the obvious
Also obvious is that the Supreme Court held the collective rights view of the 2A for almost 70 years, and only changed its view by reason of a 5 - 4 vote. Should it revert to its earlier view, the states will not be restricted by the 2A from banning entire classes of firearms and worse. Nor will Congress in passing such bans at a federal level.
This reality ought to focus the mind, and get some of you all off your mountaintops.
-
Also obvious is that the Supreme Court held the collective rights view of the 2A for almost 70 years, and only changed its view by reason of a 5 - 4 vote. Should it revert to its earlier view, the states will not be restricted by the 2A from banning entire classes of firearms and worse. Nor will Congress in passing such bans at a federal level.
This reality ought to focus the mind, and get some of you all off your mountaintops.
If you are referring to Miller, that decision was rife with errors. The court even failed to recognize that Shotguns are and have been (and still are) a military weapon, not just for duck hunting.
There is nothing more collective than "The People", to whom the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is reserved.
Nothing you say changes that fact, it's there in black and white.
-
If you are referring to Miller, that decision was rife with errors. The court even failed to recognize that Shotguns are and have been (and still are) a military weapon, not just for duck hunting.
There is nothing more collective than "The People", to whom the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is reserved.
Nothing you say changes that fact, it's there in black and white.
You're in denial, sir.
-
You're in denial, sir.
Nope. Wrong again. I'm in North Dakota.
-
Also obvious is that the Supreme Court held the collective rights view of the 2A for almost 70 years, and only changed its view by reason of a 5 - 4 vote. Should it revert to its earlier view, the states will not be restricted by the 2A from banning entire classes of firearms and worse. Nor will Congress in passing such bans at a federal level.
States can try to ban entire classes and they'll get taken to court over it and lose. Just like the city of New York is about to lose the case that was filed against it by the NYSRPA.
This "state level" bans think will happen...Heller and McDonald are the caselaw which will shoot any more attempts by a state to ban weapons or classes of weapons.
This reality ought to focus the mind, and get some of you all off your mountaintops.
Physician heal thyself.
-
You're in denial, sir.
Considering you completely deny what is plainly written in the 2nd Amendment...that's a bit of pot and kettle from you.
-
“Red flag†laws are now all the rage in the Beltway as the magic pill to prevent homicidal maniacs from wreaking havoc on the nation. Even President Trump has endorsed the idea of preemptively confiscating people’s firearms if they are deemed a “threat.â€
But if you want to know how this American version of China’s social credit system would work in practice, let me remind you of how Veterans Affairs recklessly red-flags “disruptive†citizens without due process, transparency or accountability in the name of “safety.†Government bureaucrats routinely deprive our nation’s heroes of medical treatment based on arbitrary definitions of who and what constitutes a mental health menace.
Under the VA policy on “patient record flags,†federal bureaucrats can classify vets as “threats†based on assessments of their “difficult,†“annoying†and “noncompliant†behavior. The VA manual says the flags “are used to alert Veterans Health Administration medical staff and employees of patients whose behavior and characteristics may pose a threat either to their safety, the safety of other patients, or compromise the delivery of quality health care.â€
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/08/12/how-the-va-red-flags-patriots-should-raise-alarms/ (https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/08/12/how-the-va-red-flags-patriots-should-raise-alarms/)
-
States can try to ban entire classes and they'll get taken to court over it and lose. Just like the city of New York is about to lose the case that was filed against it by the NYSRPA.
This "state level" bans think will happen...Heller and McDonald are the caselaw which will shoot any more attempts by a state to ban weapons or classes of weapons.
Correct! State law bans should be able to be overturned on the basis of Heller and McDonald. But my point is that the 2A applies to secure your rights ONLY because of Heller and McDonald. Those decisions are as vulnerable to potential reversal - and I'd argue they are significantly more vulnerable - than Roe v. Wade.
Quit fighting with your allies and focus your approbation on your enemies. I am not your enemy - just your friend trying to knock some common sense into you.
-
Considering you completely deny what is plainly written in the 2nd Amendment...that's a bit of pot and kettle from you.
What is plainly written in the 2A is the predicate clause.
-
What is plainly written in the 2A is the predicate clause.
No what is plainly written...to anyone who isn't hell bent on violating our guaranteed rights (you) is this:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Most of us here are arguing over protecting a guaranteed Constitutional right....you're arguing over a comma.
-
But my point is that the 2A applies to secure your rights ONLY because of Heller and McDonald. Those decisions are as vulnerable to potential reversal
And there's where you continually and consistently go off the rails and show a complete lack of understanding of the Second Amendment in General and what Heller and McDonald did in relation to the Second Amendment specifically.
Heller and McDonald reaffirmed what has been written in stone for over 200 years. They were necessary because of people like you that insist on arguing over a comma.
Quit fighting with your allies and focus your approbation on your enemies. I am not your enemy - just your friend trying to knock some common sense into you.
When it comes to the Second Amendment what it means and how it relates to the schemes and regulation plans you want to implement against it...you're not a friend and you're damn sure not an ally.
And you and common sense aren't even on speaking terms on this issue.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Imagine if a government official treated other rights the way Jazzy wants the 2nd Amendment handled? Could a police officer search your home without a warrant if you didn’t have some state documentation showing you particularly needed your Fourth Amendment rights? Could a district attorney require you to testify against yourself unless you somehow proved to their satisfaction that you really, really needed your Fifth Amendment rights?
-
Quit fighting with your allies and focus your approbation on your enemies. I am not your enemy - just your friend trying to knock some common sense into you.
BUUULLSHIT. You most certainly ARE the enemy.
ANYONE who tries to mess with my natural rights is not my ally.
-
What is plainly written in the 2A is the predicate clause.
*****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes*****
-
And this kinda thing, right here, is exactly why I am no longer a Republican, and probably never will be again.
*SPIT*
-
*****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes*****
The Founders put that predicate clause there. Direct your roll-eyes at them, not me.
-
BUUULLSHIT. ANYONE who tries to mess with my natural rights is not my ally.
Your very words explain how the survivors of gun rampages and the family, friends and associates of the dead feel about you messing with the natural right to life --- so maybe, just maybe you'll give some thought to turning down the sanctimony and rhetoric. Both are over the top.
-
The Founders put that predicate clause there. Direct your roll-eyes at them, not me.
The rolls are directed at your words, not the language of the 2nd. This is the fifth or so turn around your circular argument.
-
The rolls are directed at your words, not the language of the 2nd. This is the fifth or so turn around your circular argument.
I don't know how you guys can see out of the rut that has been worn around this particular bush.
-
Your very words explain how the survivors of gun rampages and the family, friends and associates of the dead feel about you messing with the natural right to life --- so maybe, just maybe you'll give some thought to turning down the sanctimony and rhetoric. Both are over the top.
Precisely ass-backwards. Far, far more peoples lives are saved by guns than taken by them. And my right to self defense is equal to my right to life, as is everyone else's... They are one and the same thing by natural law. Natural rights are monolithic and inviolable.
How DARE you prefer theirs over mine? Taking my right to defend is also taking theirs, and as history attests, over and over and over again, that is exactly where you are going. So save me your piety - COME AND GET EM.
-
The rolls are directed at your words, not the language of the 2nd. This is the fifth or so turn around your circular argument.
You describe my argument as circular. Please explain.
-
You describe my argument as circular. Please explain.
Obviously not @Cyber Liberty, and I am unsure of what he means by "circular." But I will tell you that seeing the same crap posted over and over is beyond boring.
A simple site specific google search with the terms "jazzhead" and "Heller" yields pages and pages of results... if we could search the database for those terms and count the results, it would yield the several hundreds of posts that you spam these threads with.
Any reasonable person of good intentions would realize that you are not getting any traction with your ideas (and haven't for the years that you keep spamming them) that summarize to:
- Our natural law-based RKBA is 'granted' to us by the US government via the Second Amendment (rejected and untrue)
- within the Second Amendment you believe a predicate clause intended to limit the Rights to some version of a militia (rejected and untrue)
- only with the Heller opinion did the RKBA get graciously extended by the SC, to individuals... (rejected and untrue)
Posting the same rejected arguments another several hundred times is not going to convince anyone of your beliefs.
You were invited kindly by several people to join the relevant discussion of our RKBA and the so-called Red Flag Laws being proposed, within the terms that most members of this forum adhere to, and the Principles that undergird them. You balked at not being able to watch a video, now the entire presentation has been transcribed.
Rather than persist in being a spamming troll, why don't you engage in the discussion on the terms of the vast majority of the interested and engaged forum members, rather than constantly trying to shift the debate and language to the terms and beliefs that have been clearly rejected here?
-
The Founders put that predicate clause there. Direct your roll-eyes at them, not me.
The predicate clause is why the people should not be deprived of the right to own military weapons. The people had just overthrow a totalitarian government. They were not about to prevent the people from doing that again.
-
Thanks, @EdJames for that. That is exactly what I am talking about, and I greatly appreciate the research you did for your post.
-
The predicate clause is why the people should not be deprived of the right to own military weapons. The people had just overthrow a totalitarian government. They were not about to prevent the people from doing that again.
The hazard of applying a 21st Century block written interpretation to 18th Century cursive words. A lawyer's delight.
-
Precisely ass-backwards. Far, far more peoples lives are saved by guns than taken by them. And my right to self defense is equal to my right to life, as is everyone else's... They are one and the same thing by natural law. Natural rights are monolithic and inviolable.
How DARE you prefer theirs over mine? Taking my right to defend is also taking theirs, and as history attests, over and over and over again, that is exactly where you are going. So save me your piety - COME AND GET EM.
And don't send mercenaries in uniforms to get em. Do it yourself if you want them so badly.
-
I am unsure of what he means by "circular."
So am I @EdJames @Cyber Liberty but for me, the definition is having something slapped down repeatedly today and then returning again tomorrow with the exact same thing.
-
And don't send mercenaries in uniforms to get em. Do it yourself if you want them so badly.
Yeah... Fat chance of that.
-
Rather than persist in being a spamming troll, why don't you engage in the discussion on the terms of the vast majority of the interested and engaged forum members, rather than constantly trying to shift the debate and language to the terms and beliefs that have been clearly rejected here?
This is a public forum, sir. Right now, there are more guests viewing this thread than members. On this subject, I will post what I want, within the board's rules, in order to persuade those readers of a realistic, reasonable and Constitutional view of the RKBA in opposition to the prevailing gun extremism.
And I ask again of CL: Please explain why my argument is circular.
-
Yeah... Fat chance of that.
And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.
-
And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.
On that, you are entirely wrong. And I am many.
-
This is a public forum, sir. Right now, there are more guests viewing this thread than members. On this subject, I will post what I want, within the board's rules, in order to persuade those readers of a realistic, reasonable and Constitutional view of the RKBA in opposition to the prevailing gun extremism.
And I ask again of CL: Please explain why my argument is circular.
I see what you are getting at: It's the series of arguments that is circular, not a specific argument. You will make an assertion and defend it until it's thoroughly shot down, so you introduce another argument, with the same results. Repeat several times and you return to your first disproven assertion, as if it hadn't been debunked. Then go on to the next, as if it wasn't disproven, either.
Repeat forever. As @EdJames would say, it's worse than wrong, it's boring.
-
I get this @txradioguy … citizen army. But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state".
See, this is the problem. [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary). Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:
One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.
Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns. Don't you dare -- you know they will.
Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020. Very carefully.
@Right_in_Virginia 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246)
-
And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.
Better chance of that then the nation rolling over and accepting it.
What happened with the Canadian Registration?
The vast majority refused to accept to the point the government withdrew it, rather than try to enforce it.
Why do you believe it would be more widely accepted here?
-
On that, you are entirely wrong. And I am many.
Oh, I think I'm right. Otherwise, how would be able to enjoy that moonless starry sky from your mountaintop?
-
Oh, I think I'm right. Otherwise, how would be able to enjoy that moonless starry sky from your mountaintop?
You might be surprised what I can do from a mountaintop.
-
You might be surprised what I can do from a mountaintop.
Steep embankments and a Citadel are nice, too. Sorry, no room for a moat. It would play hob with the septic leech field, anyway.
-
Steep embankments and a Citadel are nice, too. Sorry, no room for a moat. It would play hob with the septic leech field, anyway.
Doesn't matter.. @Jazzhead thinks I would forgo necessity to enjoy that starry sky... I'd rather that I deal with the necessity so that my grandchildren can do so.
-
Obviously not @Cyber Liberty, and I am unsure of what he means by "circular." But I will tell you that seeing the same crap posted over and over is beyond boring.
Unnecessary and unwise @EdJames --- when the very same could be said of your posts.
Perhaps as the Mod you could lock the Second Amendment forum for a Friday night cooling down period? Encourage folks to step outside the fight and enjoy a Friday night in the waning summer.
Just a thought.
-
What is plainly written in the 2A is the predicate clause.
The predicate clause establishes the reason for the Right of the People, but not like commonly interpreted.
Not to be part of that well (controlled) regulated Militia (standing army), but to keep it well regulated by the force, if necessary, of the overwhelming force of arms of the entire populace. This was discussed in The Federalist Papers which were, in essence, the case made in the public forum for the Constitution and the Republic.
Federalist 46 James Madison:
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.[2]
.
-
Yeah... Fat chance of that.
Yeah, half the people who want them couldn't huff and puff their way up the hill before dark.
-
And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.
Why choose either? False dichotomy.
I'll die some day, that's inevitable, and I'm in no hurry.
My firearms will live on in the hands of relatives and friends, perhaps because some of them have no paperwork on them--but certainly not because they are registered.
That piece of paper (computer file, whatever, now) would only provide the means to confiscate them, could they be found, or imprison me for 'obstruction' or some such could they not be and had been outlawed.
Why would any sane person take such risks?
I'm old enough to have seen the winds of change outlaw that which in my youth was commonplace, lawful, and moral.
Why subject possessions which have outlived governments to such whim?
I'm a firm believer in government governing best which governs least, and what the government doesn't know won't hurt me.
-
Unnecessary and unwise @EdJames --- when the very same could be said of your posts.
Ummm...I don't see it.
Perhaps as the Mod you could lock the Second Amendment forum for a Friday night cooling down period? Encourage folks to step outside the fight and enjoy a Friday night in the waning summer.
Just a thought.
No. We've been lucky so far, in that we haven't had to lock either of the "Red Flag" threads that have been running fevered the past week, and we don't want to start now, especially if the criteria (vague as they may be) have not been breached. We're more likely to remove/edit posts that are meant to cause a thread to be locked.
-
Yeah, half the people who want them couldn't huff and puff their way up the hill before dark.
They want to send physically fit officers to do the confiscation dirty work. They're too chicken to face @roamer_1 themselves, so they'll send mercenaries.
-
The predicate clause establishes the reason for the Right of the People, but not like commonly interpreted.
Not to be part of that well (controlled) regulated Militia (standing army), but to keep it well regulated by the force, if necessary, of the overwhelming force of arms of the entire populace. This was discussed in The Federalist Papers which were, in essence, the case made in the public forum for the Constitution and the Republic.
Federalist 46 James Madison:.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Sounds like Jimbo didn't want us to keep and bear arms just to shoot Bambi or paper targets.
-
Sounds like Jimbo didn't want us to keep and bear arms just to shoot Bambi or paper targets.
But he's simply talking about the federalized National Guard, doncha know. *****rollingeyes*****
-
They want to send physically fit officers to do the confiscation dirty work. They're too chicken to face @roamer_1 themselves, so they'll send mercenaries.
That is the unfortunate result of people making rules they, themselves, are insulated from (in all aspects).
-
Sounds like Jimbo didn't want us to keep and bear arms just to shoot Bambi or paper targets.
No, it was (and remains) all about securing our Liberties in case the Government 'forgot' why it was founded.
-
But he's simply talking about the federalized National Guard, doncha know. *****rollingeyes*****
That would require almost a Biblical level of prophetic prescience.
Consider "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.
In 1986, Congress passed the Montgomery Amendment, which prohibited state governors from withholding their consent to overseas deployments. The Supreme Court upheld this law in 1990, ruling against Minnesota's governor in Perpich v. Department of Defense.[4]
In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors.[5][6]
source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard)
and 10 u.s. code § 246 is from 1956
-
@Right_in_Virginia well regulated = well ordered and disciplined in their drills (marching as well as combat) and use of their weapons. It doesn’t mean regulation on the use And ownership of firearms.
Oh and as the Category Mod for the Second Amendment Section of TBR...nothing is getting locked.
I wouldn’t come into the category YOU Mod and and start suggesting topics get shut down.
Show me the same respect.
-
@Right_in_Virginia well regulated = well ordered and disciplined in their drills (marching as well as combat) and use of their weapons. It doesn’t mean regulation on the use And ownership of firearms.
Oh and as the Category Mod for the Second Amendment Section of TBR...nothing is getting locked.
I wouldn’t come into the category YOU Mod and and start suggesting topics get shut down.
Show me the same respect.
Please don't get so worked up over a suggestion that folks may need to walk away for a bit and regain composure. It wasn't an order; just a recommendation.
The poster I was directing my comments to had "Cat Mod" under his name. Good grief @txradioguy I'll never understand the things you take so personally or why you get so angry. :shrug:
-
Can I just go on the record and say if JH says the word “efficaciousâ€, I may be tempted to beat him to death with it.
-
Can I just go on the record and say if JH says the word “efficaciousâ€, I may be tempted to beat him to death with it.
Yeah... It'd be good for a beer drinking game, except we'd all be sh*tfaced by page two... :whistle: :shrug:
-
(https://img1.cgtrader.com/items/666290/2a5ef6be16/stick-club-weapon-3d-model-low-poly-max-obj-3ds-fbx.jpg)
-
Please don't get so worked up over a suggestion that folks may need to walk away for a bit and regain composure. It wasn't an order; just a recommendation.
The poster I was directing my comments to had "Cat Mod" under his name. Good grief @txradioguy I'll never understand the things you take so personally or why you get so angry. :shrug:
"Cat Moderator" is anybody with any Category. The active Mod has green squares over the Avatar. Honest mistake, since I recently did a realignment of the permissions for Mods. It wasn't always like that.
-
(https://img1.cgtrader.com/items/666290/2a5ef6be16/stick-club-weapon-3d-model-low-poly-max-obj-3ds-fbx.jpg)
That's a weird lookin tater...
-
That's a weird lookin tater...
It's a spud, alright. I was thinking of finding Nagin's bat, with the barbed wire, but I went with the caveman club..... rrthree
-
Ummm...I don't see it.
No. We've been lucky so far, in that we haven't had to lock either of the "Red Flag" threads that have been running fevered the past week, and we don't want to start now, especially if the criteria (vague as they may be) have not been breached. We're more likely to remove/edit posts that are meant to cause a thread to be locked.
I suspect that these threads are going to continue, especially when we get a glimpse of the actual bills brought forth in each chamber.
And when they actually vote on them.
The only way that they will ever end, is if Trump refuses to sign them, and tells us that he won't in the future.
Alternatively, if he does mistakenly sign anything like what is being proposed, these threads (or their derivatives) will never end....
:2popcorn:
.
-
I suspect that these threads are going to continue, especially when we get a glimpse of the actual bills brought forth in each chamber.
And when they actually vote on them.
The only way that they will ever end, is if Trump refuses to sign them, and tells us that he won't in the future.
Alternatively, if he does mistakenly sign anything like what is being proposed, these threads (or their derivatives) will never end....
:2popcorn:
.
The Democrats are coming back from recess a week early to 'work on gun control'. Consider that they have thrown enough legislation in the hopper during relatively ordinary instances of violence to mop up the blood and then some, and this likely indicates that they are going to go overboard with 'suggestions' which will likely pass the House on a Party Line Vote.
I really don't see them holding back for fear of being voted out, and unfortunately I foresee Republicans caving under the pressure to "Do Something!!", especially with the media doing their best to maintain the panic they have stirred up. (Really? People in Times Square scrambling for cover at a motorcycle backfiring?).
Unfortunately, the GOP might not be so reticent to vote for such schemes because they have long adopted the stance of "Well, so what? Who else are you going to vote for?".
As a country, we're in possibly very deep doo-doo.
-
Can I just go on the record and say if JH says the word “efficaciousâ€, I may be tempted to beat him to death with it.
@Axeslinger
You have MY vote. Anyone that actually uses that word in a conversation deserves to be beaten to death with it.
-
@Axeslinger
You have MY vote. Anyone that actually uses that word in a conversation deserves to be beaten to death with it.
@sneakypete
I’m sure his last words would be “...and reasonableeeeeee!!!â€
-
The Democrats are coming back from recess a week early to 'work on gun control'. Consider that they have thrown enough legislation in the hopper during relatively ordinary instances of violence to mop up the blood and then some, and this likely indicates that they are going to go overboard with 'suggestions' which will likely pass the House on a Party Line Vote.
I really don't see them holding back for fear of being voted out, and unfortunately I foresee Republicans caving under the pressure to "Do Something!!", especially with the media doing their best to maintain the panic they have stirred up. (Really? People in Times Square scrambling for cover at a motorcycle backfiring?).
Unfortunately, the GOP might not be so reticent to vote for such schemes because they have long adopted the stance of "Well, so what? Who else are you going to vote for?".
As a country, we're in possibly very deep doo-doo.
The one to watch in the Senate is S.66
DiFi is back with a vengeance with the Assault Weapons ban of 2019. There's a similar bill in the House as well.
-
The one to watch in the Senate is S.66
DiFi is back with a vengeance with the Assault Weapons ban of 2019. There's a similar bill in the House as well.
@txradioguy
MY question is "Will ANYONE in the US Senate or Congress have the stones to go on the floor when the cameras are running,and ask if Di Fi's husband is still the Chief US Consul,and POSSIBLY a stock holder in the US branch of the company, for the Chinese weapons manufacturer known as Norinco?
You all remember Norinco,right? Imported semi-auto AK's,SKS's,repop 1911A 45 ACP handguns,and others into the US,and were doing a booming business until somebody dropped a dime on them to the BATF because they were also importing full-auto AK-47's into the US and selling them to gangbangers,the Mexican drug cartels,etc,etc,etc?
Unfortunately for everyone but them and Di-Fi's husband,the BATF were required by law to brief a Senate Committee chaired by Di-Fi before they could pull the raid off,so they did,the day before the raid was scheduled to happen.
Oddly enough,EVERY SINGLE Chinese employee of NORINCO living in the US flew out of the US that very night to avoid having the arrest warrants sworn out on them served.
I am sure the fact that Di-Fi's husband was their business partner and the US Norinco legal rep was just a coinkydink because Di-Fi hates guns and would never tip off people importing machine guns to sell to criminals,right?
Anybody that does this MUST do it on live tv or it will never be seen or heard.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/68852614_10218427383290100_3216123819651497984_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_oc=AQnPSN0t8Hl2YGdT6-i1q4qbSStIq9Myjn22SiERB9xBR5QqPl4eycSa4kMQ4b5q0B0&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=945ea41f72d7135050e3554e8dcc2d63&oe=5DD6CBD6)
-
@txradioguy
MY question is "Will ANYONE in the US Senate or Congress have the stones to go on the floor when the cameras are running,and ask if Di Fi's husband is still the Chief US Consul,and POSSIBLY a stock holder in the US branch of the company, for the Chinese weapons manufacturer known as Norinco?
You all remember Norinco,right? Imported semi-auto AK's,SKS's,repop 1911A 45 ACP handguns,and others into the US,and were doing a booming business until somebody dropped a dime on them to the BATF because they were also importing full-auto AK-47's into the US and selling them to gangbangers,the Mexican drug cartels,etc,etc,etc?
Unfortunately for everyone but them and Di-Fi's husband,the BATF were required by law to brief a Senate Committee chaired by Di-Fi before they could pull the raid off,so they did,the day before the raid was scheduled to happen.
Oddly enough,EVERY SINGLE Chinese employee of NORINCO living in the US flew out of the US that very night to avoid having the arrest warrants sworn out on them served.
I am sure the fact that Di-Fi's husband was their business partner and the US Norinco legal rep was just a coinkydink because Di-Fi hates guns and would never tip off people importing machine guns to sell to criminals,right?
Anybody that does this MUST do it on live tv or it will never be seen or heard.
I remember all of that and the answer to your question is...sadly...no
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/68852614_10218427383290100_3216123819651497984_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_oc=AQnPSN0t8Hl2YGdT6-i1q4qbSStIq9Myjn22SiERB9xBR5QqPl4eycSa4kMQ4b5q0B0&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=945ea41f72d7135050e3554e8dcc2d63&oe=5DD6CBD6)
Yup that's what their vehicles will look like! 888high58888
-
Yup that's what their vehicles will look like! 888high58888
:beer:
-
Yup that's what their vehicles will look like! 888high58888
Unfortunately, what they show up in will look more like (with a .50 up top).
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/dd/04/48dd046e084cda856770293621100a3e.jpg)
-
Unfortunately, what they show up in will look more like (with a .50 up top).
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/dd/04/48dd046e084cda856770293621100a3e.jpg)
I'm willing to bet that...outside of the deep blue Liberal big cities...you'd be hard pressed to find a County or City law enforcement agency willing to show up in a Cougar 6x6 MRAP (that's the military designation for that vehicle)like that to take guns from either you or me.
-
I'm willing to bet that...outside of the deep blue Liberal big cities...you'd be hard pressed to find a County or City law enforcement agency willing to show up in a Cougar 6x6 MRAP (that's the military designation for that vehicle)like that to take guns from either you or me.
The optics of doing so would be incredibly bad, because videos of LEOs using that beast to collect guns would probably spark a real shooting war that will cause cops to not go home safe after the watch.
-
The optics of doing so would be incredibly bad, because videos of LEOs using that beast to collect guns would probably spark a real shooting war that will cause cops to not go home safe after the watch.
I agree. That's a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. Rode in them many times when I was outside the wire in Afghanistan. It's a light armored personnel carrier. The optics of that rolling up in a neighborhood and cops jumping out the back merely to take someones guns because of an unconstitutional law would turn millions into gun owners and/or advocates overnight.
-
I'm willing to bet that...outside of the deep blue Liberal big cities...you'd be hard pressed to find a County or City law enforcement agency willing to show up in a Cougar 6x6 MRAP (that's the military designation for that vehicle)like that to take guns from either you or me.
Well, I'm betting on that to a point, but when the US Military decided to give some of them to LEOs, a lot of good ol' boy Departments were more than willing to take one (or more) off their hands. "Tactical rescue vehicle".
-
The optics of doing so would be incredibly bad, because videos of LEOs using that beast to collect guns would probably spark a real shooting war that will cause cops to not go home safe after the watch.
By some scenarios, then the National Guard will be deployed, and not on their home turf. Then people (including Guard Members) start taking sides over unlawful orders, and the whole deal goes south as the ivory tower folks call for Martial Law and suspend Posse Comitatus (which "...restricts the armed forces from acting “as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws,†except “in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.")
In any scenario in which the widespread and universal confiscation of private firearms is decreed, I really don't think Congress would have any trouble expressly authorizing the use of whatever force was "necessary". They'd already have made packing material out of the Constitution.
The bottom line question is one of how many would follow that unlawful order.
-
The bottom line question is one of how many would follow that unlawful order.
I think you'd be surprised how many wouldn't.
Which is why Obama was trying to create a civilian paramilitary force equivalent to the Military.
He knew we wouldn't follow unlawful orders so he had to create a backup plan.
-
I think you'd be surprised how many wouldn't.
Which is why Obama was trying to create a civilian paramilitary force equivalent to the Military.
He knew we wouldn't follow unlawful orders so he had to create a backup plan.
I would be happy to be surprised in that regard. In many ways, we depend heavily on the NCOs there who are motivated more by patriotism than politics, and are where the rubber meets the road.
We all depend on you guys for more than most are aware. :patriot: