Trump Backs 'Red Flag' Laws That Could Impact Veteran Gun Ownership

[txradioguy]

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

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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.   

[Jazzhead]

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.   

This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.   

[Bill Cipher]

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. 

[txradioguy]

This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.

 

[txradioguy]

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"

[Cyber Liberty]

This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.

"Solidarity?"  LOL! 

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"Solidarity?"  LOL!

That's really cold @Cyber Liberty   

[sneakypete]

And I am by no means alone.

@roamer_1

@txradioguy

Neither is txradioguy,and we are armed and experienced.

[Jazzhead]

  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.   

[Cyber Liberty]

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.   

(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.)

[Cyber Liberty]

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:   

[txradioguy]

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:   

nailed it.

[roamer_1]

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.   

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.

[roamer_1]

This is the truth, and should serve as a call to SOLIDARITY.

Exactly wrong. It is a threat, plain and simple.

[roamer_1]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

@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.

[roamer_1]

My turn:   

You forgot suppressors. We need suppressors.

[Cyber Liberty]

Wholly manufactured bullcrap.

The same manufactured attempt to stampede the people we've heard before, through the use of copious amounts of bullcrap.

[Cyber Liberty]

You forgot suppressors. We need suppressors.

 

I forgot.  "Hearing Protection."  The kind that's actually required of hunters in what little hunting is allowed now in England.

[roamer_1]

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. 

And your translation is right on the money, as evidenced in the commentary of our Founders.

[EdJames]

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!!

 

[roamer_1]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

Give that man a Nat Sherman cigar!!

 

Thanks!  I'm on a roll today!  I was afraid I might have burned off all the fuel with the Federal/National government thing...

[roamer_1]

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!!!

[Cyber Liberty]

YEP. a regulation butt-ton of bullcrap, tamped down and full to the brim.

A Long Tonne at that.

[Cyber Liberty]

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....

[roamer_1]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think its a plot to make us buy Pringles and tennis balls.

Say, that's good stock for a spud-gun!

[skeeter]

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.

[roamer_1]

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!

[Right_in_Virginia]

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. 

 

 

[Smokin Joe]

Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President.   

Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.

Oh, he isn't wavering--HE'S SIDING WITH THEM.

[sneakypete]

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".

[Cyber Liberty]

@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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[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".

Yeah, way too late for me too... I never even wore earmuffs till in my 40's when I started realizing loss.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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. 

[roamer_1]

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 ?

[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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[roamer_1]

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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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

[thackney]

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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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 Ingraham‏
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

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/

[Right_in_Virginia]

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.