Our Hearts Are With Las Vegas

[_priapism]

Original intent was single shot flintlock long rifles. The right to keep and bear those should not be infringed.

[joan1984]

  Laying out the lines, in the face of tyranny by Democrats, who ALWAYS first go to gun control, no matter what the issue or problem may be, is necessary, especially necessary to counter the liberal media, and its influence on weak kneed RINOs who tend to buckle, unless reminded who votes for them.

  The Constitution is clear, especially since Heller ruling. The law is clear. Guns ownership and bearing is an inalienable right, not subject to infringement, by Feds, States, Towns, or anyone. It is not the words of the Constitution that give us these rights, just the Constitution, with the noted examples laid out in the first TEN amendments, incorporates all natural rights including those they felt so strongly about to detail.

  As Barbara noted, it was not foreseen at all that government could attempt to keep individuals from owning and bearing arms, from protecting their loves ones and homes, and property as may be necessary.

  Criminal actions are another matter, and clearly criminals need to be dealt with in a manner that does not reward them, and keeps the criminal away from the general population, until such a person has been rehabilitated fully.

[joan1984]

  Should one wish to alter the Second Amendment, or interpret it as flintlock rifles and such being limited... consider the limits that would place on the first Amendment, which at the time covered printing with movable type as state of the art.

  CNN was not anticipated in the First Amendment, nor Cell Phones, computers and other devices, yet it is fully applied, and rightly so. Same must apply to the Second Amendment. Reasonable people can agree, such as limits on the general availability of Full Auto firearms, and in this case, some potential accessory devices may well justify more scrutiny, and limiting, similar to Full Automatic firearms, at least on the surface.

  ATF can make that determination, and should do a full review, is prudent. That said, determination of the criminal and his actions is what needs curbed, not taking legitimate accessories and firearms away from law abiding citizens.

  Feel Good legislation is not necessary nor desired. The admonition given by the President should apply here, and for every new Regulation proposed,must come elimination of two existing Regulations as well. Maybe we should debate what those two items should be, if 'Bump Stocks' are to be further regulated.

[Elizabeth]

  Should one wish to alter the Second Amendment, or interpret it as flintlock rifles and such being limited... consider the limits that would place on the first Amendment, which at the time covered printing with movable type as state of the art.

  CNN was not anticipated in the First Amendment, nor Cell Phones, computers and other devices, yet it is fully applied, and rightly so. Same must apply to the Second Amendment. Reasonable people can agree, such as limits on the general availability of Full Auto firearms, and in this case, some potential accessory devices may well justify more scrutiny, and limiting, similar to Full Automatic firearms, at least on the surface.

  ATF can make that determination, and should do a full review, is prudent. That said, determination of the criminal and his actions is what needs curbed, not taking legitimate accessories and firearms away from law abiding citizens.

  Feel Good legislation is not necessary nor desired. The admonition given by the President should apply here, and for every new Regulation proposed,must come elimination of two existing Regulations as well. Maybe we should debate what those two items should be, if 'Bump Stocks' are to be further regulated.

I sincerely doubt the founding fathers ever imagined AK-47's / M-16's / 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles / and a whole list of other weapons available today. Most of which have no value except for killing other people (as an example an AK-47 is crap for deer hunting). I personally own an M-14 (which happens to be a very good weapon for Deer Hunting and yes it could be used very well as a sniper rifle).

Love,
liz

[MissBarbara]

  The Constitution is clear, especially since Heller ruling. The law is clear. Guns ownership and bearing is an inalienable right, not subject to infringement, by Feds, States, Towns, or anyone. It is not the words of the Constitution that give us these rights, just the Constitution, with the noted examples laid out in the first TEN amendments, incorporates all natural rights including those they felt so strongly about to detail.

Please show me where the Constitution says, "Guns ownership and bearing is an inalienable right, not subject to infringement, by Feds, States, Towns, or anyone."

Or barring that, please show me where the Heller decision says anything even remotely like that.

The fact is, you can't, because neither the Constitution nor the Heller opinions say anything of the sort.

  As Barbara noted, it was not foreseen at all that government could attempt to keep individuals from owning and bearing arms, from protecting their loves ones and homes, and property as may be necessary.

I said nothing of the sort.

I haven't he slightest problem with someone disagreeing me, or contradicting me, or presenting arguments to counter mine, or even calling me stupid.

But I have a BIG problem with someone grossly and intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote, and putting words in my mouth.

[Katiebee]

The point was to allow STATE MILITIAS to be armed.

Please re-read the Amendment for comprehension. As Barb stated, the aim was to engender a pool of self-armed citizens to staff State Militias. Today that is the National Guard.

[joan1984]

  The second amendment IS what it IS, which is for practical matters, the Heller win over the District Of Columbia, as to a citizen's personal right to own firearms and protect their property/home, with exceptions for felons, etc.

  Is it necessary to copy/paste the Heller ruling here? I am sure you are aware or could make yourselves aware, and maybe are following the District of Columbia, which again had it's gun laws struck down this week... for the same kind of reason, restrictions placed on ownership and carrying that does not respect the individual's Right to Carry.

  It is never over, there are Obama judges out there, but in this case DC lost, again, through the court, then the court of appeals, and declined to take it to the Supreme Court, as liberals here worry the Supreme Court could enforce the law, and strike down not only DC's carry laws, but all carry laws... being good liberals, they will wait for a better opportunity... meanwhile, am sure they will craft something equally offensive, and we will go through the long court battle anew, in order to retain our liberty, and serve Justice.

[Katiebee]

Joan, you have no understanding of what the words liberty and justice mean.

[Lois]

It's worse than that Katie. Joan does not even really understand the Heller decision she is citing.

[Katiebee]

I’m staying with simpler basic concepts. Confusing her with convoluted legal reasoning is simply too much.

[_priapism]

[MissBarbara]

  The second amendment IS what it IS, which is for practical matters, the Heller win over the District Of Columbia, as to a citizen's personal right to own firearms and protect their property/home, with exceptions for felons, etc.

  Is it necessary to copy/paste the Heller ruling here? I am sure you are aware or could make yourselves aware, and maybe are following the District of Columbia, which again had it's gun laws struck down this week... for the same kind of reason, restrictions placed on ownership and carrying that does not respect the individual's Right to Carry.

  It is never over, there are Obama judges out there, but in this case DC lost, again, through the court, then the court of appeals, and declined to take it to the Supreme Court, as liberals here worry the Supreme Court could enforce the law, and strike down not only DC's carry laws, but all carry laws... being good liberals, they will wait for a better opportunity... meanwhile, am sure they will craft something equally offensive, and we will go through the long court battle anew, in order to retain our liberty, and serve Justice.

The irony meter is at 9.8.

You're right: "The second amendment IS what it IS."

That being true, why do you hypocritically insist on misinterpreting what it IS, and what is SAYS, and you insist on reading into it things that simply ARE NOT there, neither in a "strict construction" of the text, nor in the "original intent" of the Framers?

And I'm still waiting for you to provide citations to demonstrate that:

1. "The first Congress went on to recognize divine rights."

2. The U.S. Constitution states that "Guns ownership and bearing is an inalienable right, not subject to infringement, by Feds, States, Towns, or anyone."

[_priapism]

And I'm still waiting for you to provide citations to demonstrate that:

1. "The first Congress went on to recognize divine rights."

2. The U.S. Constitution states that "Guns ownership and bearing is an inalienable right, not subject to infringement, by Feds, States, Towns, or anyone."

It's all right there in the "First Book of Founding Fathers Fantasy Land"... you know, the one where Washington and Jefferson were Evangelical Christians who wanted prayers in schools and AK-47's in public buildings?

[MissBarbara]

And I'm still waiting for you to provide citations to demonstrate that:

1. "The first Congress went on to recognize divine rights."

2. The U.S. Constitution states that "Guns ownership and bearing is an inalienable right, not subject to infringement, by Feds, States, Towns, or anyone."

It's all right there in the "First Book of Founding Fathers Fantasy Land"... you know, the one where Washington and Jefferson were Evangelical Christians who wanted prayers in schools and AK-47's in public buildings?

Yeah, I've read that book more than a few times.

And you forgot the part about how the Founders and Framers believed that the Constitution should always and forever be read and interpreted exactly as written, with no changes ever allowed, and no court decisions interpreting or clarifying its content.

[joan1984]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

What is to further explain.

[Lois]

 

[Katiebee]

Ag yes, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

May I point you to the writings of R.A. Heinlein? He espouses the philosophical discussion of individual rights and freedoms so beloved by you Joan. But he makes a specific distinction between a Natural right and reality. Natural rights are not enforceable and may not occur. Natural rights are a goal. The meaning of goal is an ending for which you strive, but is not guaranteed. It may be an ideal not a constant.

Because it is not something enforceable or garaunteed, your bringing it up as a equal to legal laws simply illustrates the fact that you are an ivory tower conservative without much connection to pragmatism or reality.

In other words you engage in fuzzy conservative thought.

[MissBarbara]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

What is to further explain.

More obfuscation!

What is to further explain?

How about:

And I'm still waiting for you to provide citations to demonstrate that:

1. "The first Congress went on to recognize divine rights."

2. The U.S. Constitution states that "Guns ownership and bearing is an inalienable right, not subject to infringement, by Feds, States, Towns, or anyone."

This are your words, and I quoted them exactly from your posts. So...still waiting...

[IdleBoast]

Man, for unknown reasons, kills and maims almost 600 people.

Politicians wring hands, but do nothing.

Gun lobbyists suggest making it a little harder to kill so many people quite so quickly.

Politicians wring their hands, do nothing.

Rest of planet wonders what sort of state a country is in when it's country and western singers make more sensible comments on public policy and gun control than the politicians and power brokers?

[MissBarbara]

Rest of planet wonders what sort of state a country is in when it's country and western singers make more sensible comments on public policy and gun control than the politicians and power brokers?

Exactly...