Of course it reaffirmed our RIGHT to bear arms but that means nothing to the anti-2a people.
Robert Francis O'Rourke promises to take legally owned AR15s during debate and puts shirt on sale with boast
@ad1x2 said:
@comp_atkins said:
was listening to "patriot radio" (lol) on xm yesterday and there was a caller saying how if the gubment comes to take their weapons they would basically shoot the person trying to execute the order.. you hear it all the time "cold dead hands...blah blah blah... " we get it, you're a tough guy with your gun.
got me thinking a bit. these are the kinds of folks who like to go on and on about "law and order" and being "law abiding citizens, etc..."
in a hypothetical situation where the law WAS CHANGED, held up to judicial scrutiny by the SCOTUS and people had to turn in their weapon(s) ( forget that this is unlikely for this exercise ) how many of these people would actually murder the person coming to collect them?
hard to justify being "law abiding" if you blatantly refuse to follow the law.
A lot of pro-gun advocates believe that the right to self-defense is a natural right that the government only affirms, not something that the government grants them. After all, our country was started with a rebellion and war when we declared our independence. I'm sure declaring our independence was illegal under British law at the time just like it's illegal under American law for a state to secede the union today.
You don't have to agree with them, but that is the justification they would most likely use for refusing to turn in their arms if some anti-gun supermajority got the numbers to amend the Constitution and repeal the Second Amendment. Before it comes to that, you would probably get some of the most pro-gun states declaring their independence before they agree to enforce a nationwide confiscation.
So an individuals interpretation of what is lawful in this instance > that which the law may actually say?
Natural rights are meaningless unless there is organization to uphold them.
@Stevo_the_gamer said:
@ad1x2: The landmark case of DC v. Heller has clearly already laid out the right to bear arms.
While I am aware of that, I am trying to get @LJS9502_basic's opinion on the matter since his posts seem to imply he believes that a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment would determine that the government could, without due process, legally disarm anybody that isn't currently in a militia.
@comp_atkins said:
@ad1x2 said:
A lot of pro-gun advocates believe that the right to self-defense is a natural right that the government only affirms, not something that the government grants them. After all, our country was started with a rebellion and war when we declared our independence. I'm sure declaring our independence was illegal under British law at the time just like it's illegal under American law for a state to secede the union today.
You don't have to agree with them, but that is the justification they would most likely use for refusing to turn in their arms if some anti-gun supermajority got the numbers to amend the Constitution and repeal the Second Amendment. Before it comes to that, you would probably get some of the most pro-gun states declaring their independence before they agree to enforce a nationwide confiscation.
So an individuals interpretation of what is lawful in this instance > that which the law may actually say?
Natural rights are meaningless unless there is organization to uphold them.
Some may call them natural rights and there may be others that will call them human rights.
But to answer your question, there are people that believe that, and they may be willing to do whatever it takes to assert that. In terms of organizations upholding what they see as natural rights, countries have been overthrown by citizens that believed their government and the laws they passed were of tyranny. The United States exists because they chose to defy the laws of Great Britain.
Don't limit your focus to people that believe you have the natural right to defend yourself from harm, which extends to their belief that you have the natural right to bear arms (guns in the present, swords and spears in the past before America existed). Other examples would be the belief that you have the right to dignity and respect, the right to not be a slave, a woman having the right not to be forced into sexual slavery, and more.
The Civil Rights era in America consisted of people breaking the law to overturn what they saw as unjust laws against minorities. In a more modern setting, Congressman Ocasio-Cortez said a few weeks ago that migrants have a human right to enter the United States regardless of the current immigration laws on the books or whatever the Trump Administration says. There are millions that agree with her and frequently impede the country's attempts to enforce immigration law.
@Xabiss said:
@jeezers said:
@zaryia: the AR-15 armalite rife which is semi automatic is not a millitary grade weapon, no one is using this in the millitary. You are thinking of an M-16.
Edit: Betos comment shows he has no idea what an AR-15 is
Beto has no idea what he is even talking about when it comes to guns and @zaryia is exactly the same. The only two things they know is guns make loud noises and they are scary. Funny the ones wanting to ban everything are the ones that know nothing about guns or even understand them. Get educated over what you are even talking about and quit being Google warriors.
400 million guns in this country. .0009% of those guns will ever kill anyone and 2/3 of those deaths are suicide. That point right their proves guns are pretty damn safe in this country. We have plenty of other things that kill more people each year that no one gives two craps about and they don't want to fix those issues.
Gun confiscation is nothing more then a fake crisis.
The US gun crime is incredibly high for a first world country, you think that is good?
@THUMPTABLE said:
@Xabiss said:
@jeezers said:
@zaryia: the AR-15 armalite rife which is semi automatic is not a millitary grade weapon, no one is using this in the millitary. You are thinking of an M-16.
Edit: Betos comment shows he has no idea what an AR-15 is
Beto has no idea what he is even talking about when it comes to guns and @zaryia is exactly the same. The only two things they know is guns make loud noises and they are scary. Funny the ones wanting to ban everything are the ones that know nothing about guns or even understand them. Get educated over what you are even talking about and quit being Google warriors.
400 million guns in this country. .0009% of those guns will ever kill anyone and 2/3 of those deaths are suicide. That point right their proves guns are pretty damn safe in this country. We have plenty of other things that kill more people each year that no one gives two craps about and they don't want to fix those issues.
Gun confiscation is nothing more then a fake crisis.
The US gun crime is incredibly high for a first world country, you think that is good?
well, if we double the number of guns, then the .00009% goes down even further.
moar guns will fix the problem.
Asked if @BetoORourke's gun policy is hurting negotiations on a gun bill, @Sen_JoeManchin said "Beto’s one human being, he gave his own opinion...I can tell you one thing: Beto O’Rourke is not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that, ok?"
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) September 18, 2019
One......he isn't going to be elected. Two......doubt they'd take guns but.....Three it's fun to watch gun nuts go crazy.
@LJS9502_basic said:
One......he isn't going to be elected. Two......doubt they'd take guns but.....Three it's fun to watch gun nuts go crazy.
i'm convinced politicians on the left are just paid "influencers" for the gun manufacturing lobby.
one or two tweets and the gunnys knock themselves over to buy more thinking it's their last chance.
@comp_atkins said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
One......he isn't going to be elected. Two......doubt they'd take guns but.....Three it's fun to watch gun nuts go crazy.
i'm convinced politicians on the left are just paid "influencers" for the gun manufacturing lobby.
one or two tweets and the gunnys knock themselves over to buy more thinking it's their last chance.
Beto probably owns stocks in Armalite rifles, wouldn't surprise me at all
@Solaryellow said:
Of course it reaffirmed our RIGHT to bear arms but that means nothing to the anti-2a people.
You don't have the right to bear arms. Reread the second amendment.
"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."
You're not a part of a militia. You don't have the right to bear arms. Stop sucking the NRA teet.
@drunk_pi said:
@Solaryellow said:
Of course it reaffirmed our RIGHT to bear arms but that means nothing to the anti-2a people.
You don't have the right to bear arms. Reread the second amendment.
"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."
You're not a part of a militia. You don't have the right to bear arms. Stop sucking the NRA teet.
You might want to stop before you get yourself stuck in the hole you have dug. Especially considering that the Supreme court has confirmed that the 2nd amendment gives an individual the right to bear arms.
Also, you really think that you're the first liberal who have tried that stunt?
@drunk_pi said:
@Solaryellow said:
Of course it reaffirmed our RIGHT to bear arms but that means nothing to the anti-2a people.
You don't have the right to bear arms. Reread the second amendment.
"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."
You're not a part of a militia. You don't have the right to bear arms. Stop sucking the NRA teet.
And you are wrong and the Supreme Court has ruled as such. So go suck on that teet!
@drunk_pi said:
@Solaryellow said:
Of course it reaffirmed our RIGHT to bear arms but that means nothing to the anti-2a people.
You don't have the right to bear arms. Reread the second amendment.
"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."
You're not a part of a militia. You don't have the right to bear arms. Stop sucking the NRA teet.
Sorry to dissapoint ya son, we do.
At least have the fortitude to admit you are incorrect.
@vfighter: @Xabiss: @Solaryellow: @Jacanuk
lol ok.
LINK:
So clearly and unequivocally held was this worldview that no less a liberal squish than Richard Nixon Supreme Court appointee Warren Burger said after his retirement in 1991 that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” This reading was based on precedent. The Supreme Court had clearly agreed with Burger’s interpretation and not that of the special interest groups he chastised, perhaps most famously in a 1939 case called U.S. v. Miller. That ruling said that since the possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” had no reasonable relationship to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court simply could not find that the Second Amendment guaranteed “the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Period, full stop. And that was the viewpoint adopted by the courts for years.
What changed? As Cass Sunstein and others have explained, what changed things was a decades-long effort by exceptionally well-organized, well-funded interest groups that included the National Rifle Association—all of whom “embarked on an extraordinary campaign to convince the public, and eventually the courts, to understand the Second Amendment in their preferred way.” It’s rather miraculous, if you stop to think about it: In a few short decades the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment became the law of the land. By 2008, writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Antonin Scalia enshrined this view for first time 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.”
2nd Amendment was never about some dolt owning a gun, it was suppose to be for militias. The NRA committed fraud using fake quotes to sell guns and you all fell for it.
But I ask you this: Why is it your right to own a gun?
@drunk_pi said:
@Solaryellow said:
Of course it reaffirmed our RIGHT to bear arms but that means nothing to the anti-2a people.
You don't have the right to bear arms. Reread the second amendment.
"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."
You're not a part of a militia. You don't have the right to bear arms. Stop sucking the NRA teet.
Indeed. This deliberate misreading of the second amendment annoys me.
@drunk_pi: Interesting. I do wonder if Slate would cite Burger for any of his gay rights stances.
DC v. Heller clearly established the right to bear arms. You can disagree with the courts interpretation, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.
@drunk_pi said:
@vfighter: @Xabiss: @Solaryellow: @Jacanuk
lol ok.
LINK:
So clearly and unequivocally held was this worldview that no less a liberal squish than Richard Nixon Supreme Court appointee Warren Burger said after his retirement in 1991 that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” This reading was based on precedent. The Supreme Court had clearly agreed with Burger’s interpretation and not that of the special interest groups he chastised, perhaps most famously in a 1939 case called U.S. v. Miller. That ruling said that since the possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” had no reasonable relationship to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court simply could not find that the Second Amendment guaranteed “the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Period, full stop. And that was the viewpoint adopted by the courts for years.
What changed? As Cass Sunstein and others have explained, what changed things was a decades-long effort by exceptionally well-organized, well-funded interest groups that included the National Rifle Association—all of whom “embarked on an extraordinary campaign to convince the public, and eventually the courts, to understand the Second Amendment in their preferred way.” It’s rather miraculous, if you stop to think about it: In a few short decades the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment became the law of the land. By 2008, writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Antonin Scalia enshrined this view for first time 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.”
2nd Amendment was never about some dolt owning a gun, it was suppose to be for militias. The NRA committed fraud using fake quotes to sell guns and you all fell for it.
But I ask you this: Why is it your right to own a gun?
You said something not only asinine but incorrect and rather than owning it you try and move goal posts.
@Solaryellow said:
@drunk_pi said:
@vfighter: @Xabiss: @Solaryellow: @Jacanuk
lol ok.
2nd Amendment was never about some dolt owning a gun, it was suppose to be for militias. The NRA committed fraud using fake quotes to sell guns and you all fell for it.
But I ask you this: Why is it your right to own a gun?
You said something not only asinine but incorrect and rather than owning it you try and move goal posts.
He quoted the second amendment.....and you call that asinine? Right....I mean this president tramples on the constitution so I guess his followers do as well.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Solaryellow said:
@drunk_pi said:
@vfighter: @Xabiss: @Solaryellow: @Jacanuk
lol ok.
2nd Amendment was never about some dolt owning a gun, it was suppose to be for militias. The NRA committed fraud using fake quotes to sell guns and you all fell for it.
But I ask you this: Why is it your right to own a gun?
You said something not only asinine but incorrect and rather than owning it you try and move goal posts.
He quoted the second amendment.....and you call that asinine? Right....I mean this president tramples on the constitution so I guess his followers do as well.
Sorry, I think I’ll take the word of those Supreme Court justices that said individuals (not just militias) have the right to bear arms over some guy on a video game forum. I’m sure several other posters that aren’t anti-Second Amendment will feel the same way.
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Solaryellow said:
@drunk_pi said:
@vfighter: @Xabiss: @Solaryellow: @Jacanuk
lol ok.
2nd Amendment was never about some dolt owning a gun, it was suppose to be for militias. The NRA committed fraud using fake quotes to sell guns and you all fell for it.
But I ask you this: Why is it your right to own a gun?
You said something not only asinine but incorrect and rather than owning it you try and move goal posts.
He quoted the second amendment.....and you call that asinine? Right....I mean this president tramples on the constitution so I guess his followers do as well.
Sorry, I think I’ll take the word of those Supreme Court justices that said individuals (not just militias) have the right to bear arms over some guy on a video game forum. I’m sure several other posters that aren’t anti-Second Amendment will feel the same way.
I don't care what you'll take. I'm talking about black and white words in the Constitution over a court's opinion. Which by the way can change.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Solaryellow said:
@drunk_pi said:
@vfighter: @Xabiss: @Solaryellow: @Jacanuk
lol ok.
2nd Amendment was never about some dolt owning a gun, it was suppose to be for militias. The NRA committed fraud using fake quotes to sell guns and you all fell for it.
But I ask you this: Why is it your right to own a gun?
You said something not only asinine but incorrect and rather than owning it you try and move goal posts.
He quoted the second amendment.....and you call that asinine? Right....I mean this president tramples on the constitution so I guess his followers do as well.
Sorry, I think I’ll take the word of those Supreme Court justices that said individuals (not just militias) have the right to bear arms over some guy on a video game forum. I’m sure several other posters that aren’t anti-Second Amendment will feel the same way.
I don't care what you'll take. I'm talking about black and white words in the Constitution over a court's opinion. Which by the way can change.
Your opinion is irrelevant, it's the opinion of the court that matters and until the justices change their interpretation it's going to stay that way.
The fact that liberals want to appoint justices they assume will rule against the Second Amendment so bad is why many gun owners will vote for Trump again even if he makes himself look like a jackass. Be sure to thank Robert Francis for his gun grabbing statement.
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Solaryellow said:
You said something not only asinine but incorrect and rather than owning it you try and move goal posts.
He quoted the second amendment.....and you call that asinine? Right....I mean this president tramples on the constitution so I guess his followers do as well.
Sorry, I think I’ll take the word of those Supreme Court justices that said individuals (not just militias) have the right to bear arms over some guy on a video game forum. I’m sure several other posters that aren’t anti-Second Amendment will feel the same way.
I don't care what you'll take. I'm talking about black and white words in the Constitution over a court's opinion. Which by the way can change.
Your opinion is irrelevant, it's the opinion of the court that matters and until the justices change their interpretation it's going to stay that way.
The fact that liberals want to appoint justices they assume will rule against the Second Amendment so bad is why many gun owners will vote for Trump again even if he makes himself look like a jackass. Be sure to thank Robert Francis for his gun grabbing statement.
I didn't state an opinion. Deal with it.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
Your opinion is irrelevant, it's the opinion of the court that matters and until the justices change their interpretation it's going to stay that way.
The fact that liberals want to appoint justices they assume will rule against the Second Amendment so bad is why many gun owners will vote for Trump again even if he makes himself look like a jackass. Be sure to thank Robert Francis for his gun grabbing statement.
I didn't state an opinion. Deal with it.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution states no gun-grabbing politician can just show up at my door and force me to give him my weapons without due process. Deal with it.
@ad1x2 said:
Your opinion is irrelevant, it's the opinion of the court that matters and until the justices change their interpretation it's going to stay that way.
The fact that liberals want to appoint justices they assume will rule against the Second Amendment so bad is why many gun owners will vote for Trump again even if he makes himself look like a jackass. Be sure to thank Robert Francis for his gun grabbing statement.
History and facts don't care about your feelings, nor is the court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment correct. This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing, the interpretation that every American has the right to own a gun is a recent interpretation thanks to NRA lobbying on false and misleading pretenses that has continued thanks to ignorance of the actual amendment and the history behind it.
The founding fathers never intended that every American own a gun. The 2nd gave the right to have militias. That's it.
@drunk_pi said:
@ad1x2 said:
Your opinion is irrelevant, it's the opinion of the court that matters and until the justices change their interpretation it's going to stay that way.
The fact that liberals want to appoint justices they assume will rule against the Second Amendment so bad is why many gun owners will vote for Trump again even if he makes himself look like a jackass. Be sure to thank Robert Francis for his gun grabbing statement.
History and facts don't care about your feelings, nor is the court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment correct. This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing, the interpretation that every American has the right to own a gun is a recent interpretation thanks to NRA lobbying on false and misleading pretenses that has continued thanks to ignorance of the actual amendment and the history behind it.
The founding fathers never intended that every American own a gun. The 2nd gave the right to have militias. That's it.
I'm sure that there are several things the Founding Fathers didn't intend that still go on. What do you think are the chances they assumed the First Amendment they ratified in the 1790s would give some guy the legal right to call the president a racist orange moron almost 230 years in the future thousands of miles away using a contraption they can hold in the palm of their hand? But the courts say that it's perfectly legal as long as they don't violate 18 U.S.C. § 871.
Go ahead and read this if you like. I would take their word over the word of some guy on a video game forum that probably thinks outlawing guns is the magical solution that will stop all future mass shootings. Or tell Lachelle Hudgins that your interpretation of the Constitution would make it illegal for her to possess a gun until she joins a militia.
@ad1x2 said:
I'm sure that there are several things the Founding Fathers didn't intend that still go on. What do you think are the chances they assumed the First Amendment they ratified in the 1790s would give some guy the legal right to call the president a racist orange moron almost 230 years in the future thousands of miles away using a contraption they can hold in the palm of their hand? But the courts say that it's perfectly legal as long as they don't violate 18 U.S.C. § 871.
Go ahead and read this if you like. I would take their word over the word of some guy on a video game forum that probably thinks outlawing guns is the magical solution that will stop all future mass shootings. Or tell Lachelle Hudgins that your interpretation of the Constitution would make it illegal for her to possess a gun until she joins a militia.
The link to the article that I posted would suffice. You don't have to take my word for anything. You can read the history of the 2nd amendment and realize that the interpretation is folly and exaggerated to fit the NRA's narrative. It's bullshit. The very idea of owning a gun to prevent tyranny is bullshit and based on a false premise.
And while were at it.
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Pulse Club, and so on. I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments on guns out there, particularly banning silencers, and ignoring legitimate methods of gun control such as having a certification process, but those massacres happened thanks to your and everyone's ignorance of the 2nd amendment thinking that every American can own a gun.
It's dumb. It's dangerous. And it's based on false information.
@drunk_pi said:
@ad1x2 said:
I'm sure that there are several things the Founding Fathers didn't intend that still go on. What do you think are the chances they assumed the First Amendment they ratified in the 1790s would give some guy the legal right to call the president a racist orange moron almost 230 years in the future thousands of miles away using a contraption they can hold in the palm of their hand? But the courts say that it's perfectly legal as long as they don't violate 18 U.S.C. § 871.
Go ahead and read this if you like. I would take their word over the word of some guy on a video game forum that probably thinks outlawing guns is the magical solution that will stop all future mass shootings. Or tell Lachelle Hudgins that your interpretation of the Constitution would make it illegal for her to possess a gun until she joins a militia.
The link to the article that I posted would suffice. You don't have to take my word for anything. You can read the history of the 2nd amendment and realize that the interpretation is folly and exaggerated to fit the NRA's narrative. It's bullshit. The very idea of owning a gun to prevent tyranny is bullshit and based on a false premise.
And while were at it.
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Pulse Club, and so on. I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments on guns out there, particularly banning silencers, and ignoring legitimate methods of gun control such as having a certification process, but those massacres happened thanks to your and everyone's ignorance of the 2nd amendment thinking that every American can own a gun.
It's dumb. It's dangerous. And it's based on false information.
So what you're saying is that if it wasn't for the big, bad NRA guns would have already been banned and none of those mass shootings would have happened. Got it. Regardless, it doesn't matter what you or any anti-NRA article you post says, what matters is what the Constitution and the Supreme Court says.
And like I said earlier, Beto's promise was a great way to harm Democrats in the polls next year; you can almost guarantee that Beto's promise will be in several attack ads during the general election. If all it takes to take away gun rights is to pack the court, you can guarantee that anybody that cares about their gun rights will make sure they vote for the guy that says he will keep the court pro-2nd Amendment.
You say that private ownership was never the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and anybody that disagrees with you is some gun crazy moron that doesn't understand the original meaning even if they're a Supreme Court justice. Despite that, something inside me tells me that if I tried to use the same logic to say that the 14th Amendment only applied to slaves and wasn't meant to cover the children of immigrants in the country illegally you would at best tell me I'm wrong and at worst call me a bigot.
@drunk_pi said:
@ad1x2 said:
I'm sure that there are several things the Founding Fathers didn't intend that still go on. What do you think are the chances they assumed the First Amendment they ratified in the 1790s would give some guy the legal right to call the president a racist orange moron almost 230 years in the future thousands of miles away using a contraption they can hold in the palm of their hand? But the courts say that it's perfectly legal as long as they don't violate 18 U.S.C. § 871.
Go ahead and read this if you like. I would take their word over the word of some guy on a video game forum that probably thinks outlawing guns is the magical solution that will stop all future mass shootings. Or tell Lachelle Hudgins that your interpretation of the Constitution would make it illegal for her to possess a gun until she joins a militia.
The link to the article that I posted would suffice. You don't have to take my word for anything. You can read the history of the 2nd amendment and realize that the interpretation is folly and exaggerated to fit the NRA's narrative. It's bullshit. The very idea of owning a gun to prevent tyranny is bullshit and based on a false premise.
And while were at it.
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Pulse Club, and so on. I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments on guns out there, particularly banning silencers, and ignoring legitimate methods of gun control such as having a certification process, but those massacres happened thanks to your and everyone's ignorance of the 2nd amendment thinking that every American can own a gun.
It's dumb. It's dangerous. And it's based on false information.
I think I will take the word of the supreme court and not some liberal SJW on a gaming forum. Sorry you are wrong and the biggest court in the United States does not agree with you. So go cry in the corner while I clean my guns that I have all rights to own.
There are many more senseless acts that kill everyone every day and I don't see you going nuts about that. It is life and the price of freedom. Those massacres had nothing to do with legal carrying gun owners. There are over 400 million guns in this country and less then .0009% of those guns kill anyone yearly. If you ask me they are pretty damn safe.
So cry more because you are WRONG!
@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Solaryellow said:
@drunk_pi said:
@vfighter: @Xabiss: @Solaryellow: @Jacanuk
lol ok.
2nd Amendment was never about some dolt owning a gun, it was suppose to be for militias. The NRA committed fraud using fake quotes to sell guns and you all fell for it.
But I ask you this: Why is it your right to own a gun?
You said something not only asinine but incorrect and rather than owning it you try and move goal posts.
He quoted the second amendment.....and you call that asinine? Right....I mean this president tramples on the constitution so I guess his followers do as well.
Sorry, I think I’ll take the word of those Supreme Court justices that said individuals (not just militias) have the right to bear arms over some guy on a video game forum. I’m sure several other posters that aren’t anti-Second Amendment will feel the same way.
I don't care what you'll take. I'm talking about black and white words in the Constitution over a court's opinion. Which by the way can change.
The entire mission of the Supreme Court is the make sure people follow the constitution. In essence them stating we have all rights to own guns is because of the second amendment. Let me give you a lesson on the role of the Supreme Court and pay close attention.
The Supreme Court protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law
@ad1x2 said:
You say that private ownership was never the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and anybody that disagrees with you is some gun crazy moron that doesn't understand the original meaning even if they're a Supreme Court justice. Despite that, something inside me tells me that if I tried to use the same logic to say that the 14th Amendment only applied to slaves and wasn't meant to cover the children of immigrants in the country illegally you would at best tell me I'm wrong and at worst call me a bigot.
While you are mentioning the 14th Amendment, remember Roe v Wade. I guarantee the very same people on here arguing the 2A does not pertain to individual people will not argue against the 1973 court decision. What about court rulings on searching cell phones and computers? No mention was ever made in the Constitution but I guarantee these people will support court rulings stating the 4th applies.
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
Your opinion is irrelevant, it's the opinion of the court that matters and until the justices change their interpretation it's going to stay that way.
The fact that liberals want to appoint justices they assume will rule against the Second Amendment so bad is why many gun owners will vote for Trump again even if he makes himself look like a jackass. Be sure to thank Robert Francis for his gun grabbing statement.
I didn't state an opinion. Deal with it.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution states no gun-grabbing politician can just show up at my door and force me to give him my weapons without due process. Deal with it.
And as I stated above that can all be changed. It's also NOT what the second amendment states. So stop pretending it is.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution states no gun-grabbing politician can just show up at my door and force me to give him my weapons without due process. Deal with it.
And as I stated above that can all be changed. It's also NOT what the second amendment states. So stop pretending it is.
A legally-owned gun saved the life of one of my close family members. You're not going to convince me that they should have been disarmed because you're afraid of the next potential mass shooting. Your post is exactly why I'll be voting for Trump in 2020.
I may not like his rhetoric half of the time and he puts his foot in his mouth a lot, but I know if one of these Democrats running right now gets elected they're going to try to pack the court with liberal justices that will try to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment the way you apparently interpret it.
Consider it no different than liberals rallying people to vote against Republicans by stating that they want to pack the court with justices that want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@ad1x2 said:
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution states no gun-grabbing politician can just show up at my door and force me to give him my weapons without due process. Deal with it.
And as I stated above that can all be changed. It's also NOT what the second amendment states. So stop pretending it is.
A legally-owned gun saved the life of one of my close family members. You're not going to convince me that they should have been disarmed because you're afraid of the next potential mass shooting. Your post is exactly why I'll be voting for Trump in 2020.
I may not like his rhetoric half of the time and he puts his foot in his mouth a lot, but I know if one of these Democrats running right now gets elected they're going to try to pack the court with liberal justices that will try to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment the way you apparently interpret it.
Consider it no different than liberals rallying people to vote against Republicans by stating that they want to pack the court with justices that want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As if anyone here didn't think you wouldn't vote for trump. And that oath about defending the constitution was not serious on your part...…...since you proudly support someone who shits on it.
Also stricter gun laws do not equal taking your legal guns away but continue to find a loophole for your trump love.
@LJS9502_basic said:
As if anyone here didn't think you wouldn't vote for trump. And that oath about defending the constitution was not serious on your part...…...since you proudly support someone who shits on it.
Oh please, how often do people on this forum advocate ignoring the law over their feelings? From immigration enforcement to allowing people to speak without physically assaulting them because you don't agree with what they said, it happens a lot. You can't even get someone to disavow Antifa without them pivoting to some right-wing boogeyman they say is much worse.
Send me a Democrat that will actually support and defend the Constitution and I may consider them over Trump. I'd even consider 2008 Barack Obama at this point. Instead, you are sending a bunch of open border gun grabbers and then wonder why I don't want to vote for them.
I could understand many of these other posters being anti-2nd Amendment because of the bubble they grew up in, but you? How are you a veteran that thinks the country should be disarmed? Some of my family members absolutely despise Trump but they aren't going to give up their pistols. They live in areas where they refuse to count on the police to save them because they think the the cops are racist and won't put as much effort to save them as they would if they were white people living in a white neighborhood.
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
As if anyone here didn't think you wouldn't vote for trump. And that oath about defending the constitution was not serious on your part...…...since you proudly support someone who shits on it.
Oh please, how often do people on this forum advocate ignoring the law over their feelings? From immigration enforcement to allowing people to speak without physically assaulting them because you don't agree with what they said, it happens a lot. You can't even get someone to disavow Antifa without them pivoting to some right-wing boogeyman they say is much worse.
Send me a Democrat that will actually support and defend the Constitution and I may consider them over Trump. I'd even consider 2008 Barack Obama at this point. Instead, you are sending a bunch of open border gun grabbers and then wonder why I don't want to vote for them.
I could understand many of these other posters being anti-2nd Amendment because of the bubble they grew up in, but you? How are you a veteran that thinks the country should be disarmed? Some of my family members absolutely despise Trump but they aren't going to give up their pistols. They live in areas where they refuse to count on the police to save them because they think the the cops are racist and won't put as much effort to save them as they would if they were white people living in a white neighborhood.
It's true. Republicans win with fear.
@LJS9502_basic said:
It's true. Republicans win with fear.
"He gonna put y'all back in chains" -Joe Biden about Mitt Romney
Trump and Pence are bringing us closer to being a real-life Republic of Gilead according to the Atlantic
That's just two examples, but I could go on and on about trying to win with fear.
@Xabiss said:
@drunk_pi said:
@ad1x2 said:
I'm sure that there are several things the Founding Fathers didn't intend that still go on. What do you think are the chances they assumed the First Amendment they ratified in the 1790s would give some guy the legal right to call the president a racist orange moron almost 230 years in the future thousands of miles away using a contraption they can hold in the palm of their hand? But the courts say that it's perfectly legal as long as they don't violate 18 U.S.C. § 871.
Go ahead and read this if you like. I would take their word over the word of some guy on a video game forum that probably thinks outlawing guns is the magical solution that will stop all future mass shootings. Or tell Lachelle Hudgins that your interpretation of the Constitution would make it illegal for her to possess a gun until she joins a militia.
The link to the article that I posted would suffice. You don't have to take my word for anything. You can read the history of the 2nd amendment and realize that the interpretation is folly and exaggerated to fit the NRA's narrative. It's bullshit. The very idea of owning a gun to prevent tyranny is bullshit and based on a false premise.
And while were at it.
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Pulse Club, and so on. I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments on guns out there, particularly banning silencers, and ignoring legitimate methods of gun control such as having a certification process, but those massacres happened thanks to your and everyone's ignorance of the 2nd amendment thinking that every American can own a gun.
It's dumb. It's dangerous. And it's based on false information.
I think I will take the word of the supreme court and not some liberal SJW on a gaming forum. Sorry you are wrong and the biggest court in the United States does not agree with you. So go cry in the corner while I clean my guns that I have all rights to own.
Oh.. oh wow.... Please show me where the facts hurt your feelings. lol Also, please don't hurt yourself. You're statistically more likely to shoot yourself by accident then overthrow a tyrannical government. In fact, your guns don't mean squat.
Again, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that owning a gun is a right is a very recent interpretation that is based on false and/or misleading information. This isn't from me. It's from Warren Berger, as well as other academics who have studied this. The Supreme Court (or the justices who have been mislead to believe this) are simply wrong and basing it off of misleading information. The founding fathers never intended that every dolt own a gun. It was all militias. Read the second amendment next time, and all of it please.
There are many more senseless acts that kill everyone every day and I don't see you going nuts about that. It is life and the price of freedom. Those massacres had nothing to do with legal carrying gun owners. There are over 400 million guns in this country and less then .0009% of those guns kill anyone yearly. If you ask me they are pretty damn safe.
"It is life and the price of freedom." lol no it's not. When states (and countries) enacted efficient gun control laws that regulated the proliferation of guns and who owns a gun, it saw a decrease in crime, suicides, etc. Hint, hint, Australia. Gun violence is expensive, both in human cost and monetary cost. It's more of a negative than a positive that is costing this nation. While the massacres have received greater attention, there's also the proliferation of guns, suicides, accidental shootings, and gun crimes that happen so much, from the cities to rural areas.
So cry more because you are WRONG!
Here's a fun fact: Gun ownership =/= the right to own a gun. You can still own a gun, provided you past a background check and are properly certified to hold one.
I don't oppose gun ownership. The interpretation is the issue. Here's a tissue for your hurt feelings. ;)
@ad1x2 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
As if anyone here didn't think you wouldn't vote for trump. And that oath about defending the constitution was not serious on your part...…...since you proudly support someone who shits on it.
Oh please, how often do people on this forum advocate ignoring the law over their feelings? From immigration enforcement to allowing people to speak without physically assaulting them because you don't agree with what they said, it happens a lot. You can't even get someone to disavow Antifa without them pivoting to some right-wing boogeyman they say is much worse.
Send me a Democrat that will actually support and defend the Constitution and I may consider them over Trump. I'd even consider 2008 Barack Obama at this point. Instead, you are sending a bunch of open border gun grabbers and then wonder why I don't want to vote for them.
I could understand many of these other posters being anti-2nd Amendment because of the bubble they grew up in, but you? How are you a veteran that thinks the country should be disarmed? Some of my family members absolutely despise Trump but they aren't going to give up their pistols. They live in areas where they refuse to count on the police to save them because they think the the cops are racist and won't put as much effort to save them as they would if they were white people living in a white neighborhood.
You try so hard to argue as a devil's advocate, it's depressing.
In what way did I suggest that we should take away guns? Gun ownership =/= right to own a gun.
If it makes you feel better, I don't oppose gun ownership. I just don't think it should be a right and the interpretation is based on false pretenses as stated by a supreme court official, as well as other historians and academics who studied the issue. And if it makes you feel better, some of the gun control methods are wonky and inefficient. I personally think that if a person wants to purchase a gun, they go through a week long certification process, which means those doing background checks have more time, and may dissuade individuals who are buying a gun on impulse. Also, people own guns in other countries, even with strict gun control laws. And those countries are free, if not freer than us. Everytime I hear the argument for owning a gun, it's "IT'S MY GODDAMN RIGHT, I'M AN AMERICAN!!!!1" It's a childish excuse that holds no meaning as evident with one of the posters who responded and argued that I'm a SJW and why they should listen to me, nevermind the link I posted with Warren Berger stating the obvious. They don't have to listen to me, just read the history behind it and realize it's all misleading.
Does that make you feel better? No?
How about, I don't agree with Anti-fa and think it's a joke of a movement. And while they have had violent tendencies and should be paid attention to, it doesn't change that white supremacy is a legitimate, real, and greater threat. Everytime there's a thread on this issue, you and others always turn into a "WHAT ABOUT ANTIFA!!!!!!!1" What about them? You've had lone wolf and white supremacist groups commit terrorist acts (or planned to) on American soil. Violence from either side is wrong but you're doing the whole "whataboutism" because, in my opinion, you're trying to be edgy. No ones cares.
Oh... no? Does that not make you feel better? Because those Democrats are anti-constitutional? Are they?
Because so far, the president has potentially committed a very treasonous, if not, perhaps illegal act that may actually be anti-constitutional. Yet, no word on the Republicans on any action. Yeah, Democrats are anti-constitutional. You know what? I honestly don't think you read the Constitution. The Constitution is like the Bible. Everyone talks about it, worships it, but has never read the damn thing, nor understand the historical context behind it, nor understand that it's ok to realize that some parts of it are incredibly outdated and inefficient. And no, I don't oppose the Constitution. I just don't support the blind worship. It's a great document that still holds relevance.
Oh.... what about immigration. You're right, the law is the law. Unfortunately, the application of the law is dubious, our immigration process is broken, and the pursuit of stricter immigration laws is based on emotion and fear of brown people. Same holds true with the Chinese inclusion act and other immigration laws of the past. This is no different.
I'm ok with the free movement of people (read people, not other things). Less government interference, greater efficiency, and less violence on the borders. Works well in Europe. But we're not there yet. Mexico is a mess and drugs are a significant problem. Secure borders are important but the pursuit of a wall and other immigration practices such as detainment is inefficient and ethically wrong.
What I want is a group of people that want to govern using what works, not people who moan about government and stifle everything, creating greater inefficiencies, enacting questionable policies, and endangering the lives of many because of their so-called principles. I'm going to vote Democrat. I use to vote Republican and was a Libertarian. I empathize with the arguments but it's all based on fear and nonsense. If you want to vote Republican because you buy into what they're saying, I feel pity because I fell for it too and realized how dumb I was in the end.
@drunk_pi said:
@Xabiss said:
@drunk_pi said:
@ad1x2 said:
I'm sure that there are several things the Founding Fathers didn't intend that still go on. What do you think are the chances they assumed the First Amendment they ratified in the 1790s would give some guy the legal right to call the president a racist orange moron almost 230 years in the future thousands of miles away using a contraption they can hold in the palm of their hand? But the courts say that it's perfectly legal as long as they don't violate 18 U.S.C. § 871.
Go ahead and read this if you like. I would take their word over the word of some guy on a video game forum that probably thinks outlawing guns is the magical solution that will stop all future mass shootings. Or tell Lachelle Hudgins that your interpretation of the Constitution would make it illegal for her to possess a gun until she joins a militia.
The link to the article that I posted would suffice. You don't have to take my word for anything. You can read the history of the 2nd amendment and realize that the interpretation is folly and exaggerated to fit the NRA's narrative. It's bullshit. The very idea of owning a gun to prevent tyranny is bullshit and based on a false premise.
And while were at it.
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Pulse Club, and so on. I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments on guns out there, particularly banning silencers, and ignoring legitimate methods of gun control such as having a certification process, but those massacres happened thanks to your and everyone's ignorance of the 2nd amendment thinking that every American can own a gun.
It's dumb. It's dangerous. And it's based on false information.
I think I will take the word of the supreme court and not some liberal SJW on a gaming forum. Sorry you are wrong and the biggest court in the United States does not agree with you. So go cry in the corner while I clean my guns that I have all rights to own.
Oh.. oh wow.... Please show me where the facts hurt your feelings. lol Also, please don't hurt yourself. You're statistically more likely to shoot yourself by accident then overthrow a tyrannical government. In fact, your guns don't mean squat.
Again, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that owning a gun is a right is a very recent interpretation that is based on false and/or misleading information. This isn't from me. It's from Warren Berger, as well as other academics who have studied this. The Supreme Court (or the justices who have been mislead to believe this) are simply wrong and basing it off of misleading information. The founding fathers never intended that every dolt own a gun. It was all militias. Read the second amendment next time, and all of it please.
There are many more senseless acts that kill everyone every day and I don't see you going nuts about that. It is life and the price of freedom. Those massacres had nothing to do with legal carrying gun owners. There are over 400 million guns in this country and less then .0009% of those guns kill anyone yearly. If you ask me they are pretty damn safe.
"It is life and the price of freedom." lol no it's not. When states (and countries) enacted efficient gun control laws that regulated the proliferation of guns and who owns a gun, it saw a decrease in crime, suicides, etc. Hint, hint, Australia. Gun violence is expensive, both in human cost and monetary cost. It's more of a negative than a positive that is costing this nation. While the massacres have received greater attention, there's also the proliferation of guns, suicides, accidental shootings, and gun crimes that happen so much, from the cities to rural areas.
So cry more because you are WRONG!
Here's a fun fact: Gun ownership =/= the right to own a gun. You can still own a gun, provided you past a background check and are properly certified to hold one.
I don't oppose gun ownership. The interpretation is the issue. Here's a tissue for your hurt feelings. ;)
Just because one justice didn't agree does not make them right. Sorry that is not how it works. Sorry the second amendment is about gun ownership and if it was not then why didn't the government start confiscating guns then? Why has it taken so long to bring it up now? Because it is a hot point the liberals think can help them in an election. Nothing more, nothing less. .0009% of guns harm anyone each year. Sorry to say guns keep us safe and they are not dangerous to society. The stats prove it!
@Xabiss said:
@drunk_pi said:
@Xabiss said:
@drunk_pi said:
@ad1x2 said:
I'm sure that there are several things the Founding Fathers didn't intend that still go on. What do you think are the chances they assumed the First Amendment they ratified in the 1790s would give some guy the legal right to call the president a racist orange moron almost 230 years in the future thousands of miles away using a contraption they can hold in the palm of their hand? But the courts say that it's perfectly legal as long as they don't violate 18 U.S.C. § 871.
Go ahead and read this if you like. I would take their word over the word of some guy on a video game forum that probably thinks outlawing guns is the magical solution that will stop all future mass shootings. Or tell Lachelle Hudgins that your interpretation of the Constitution would make it illegal for her to possess a gun until she joins a militia.
The link to the article that I posted would suffice. You don't have to take my word for anything. You can read the history of the 2nd amendment and realize that the interpretation is folly and exaggerated to fit the NRA's narrative. It's bullshit. The very idea of owning a gun to prevent tyranny is bullshit and based on a false premise.
And while were at it.
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Pulse Club, and so on. I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments on guns out there, particularly banning silencers, and ignoring legitimate methods of gun control such as having a certification process, but those massacres happened thanks to your and everyone's ignorance of the 2nd amendment thinking that every American can own a gun.
It's dumb. It's dangerous. And it's based on false information.
I think I will take the word of the supreme court and not some liberal SJW on a gaming forum. Sorry you are wrong and the biggest court in the United States does not agree with you. So go cry in the corner while I clean my guns that I have all rights to own.
Oh.. oh wow.... Please show me where the facts hurt your feelings. lol Also, please don't hurt yourself. You're statistically more likely to shoot yourself by accident then overthrow a tyrannical government. In fact, your guns don't mean squat.
Again, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that owning a gun is a right is a very recent interpretation that is based on false and/or misleading information. This isn't from me. It's from Warren Berger, as well as other academics who have studied this. The Supreme Court (or the justices who have been mislead to believe this) are simply wrong and basing it off of misleading information. The founding fathers never intended that every dolt own a gun. It was all militias. Read the second amendment next time, and all of it please.
There are many more senseless acts that kill everyone every day and I don't see you going nuts about that. It is life and the price of freedom. Those massacres had nothing to do with legal carrying gun owners. There are over 400 million guns in this country and less then .0009% of those guns kill anyone yearly. If you ask me they are pretty damn safe.
"It is life and the price of freedom." lol no it's not. When states (and countries) enacted efficient gun control laws that regulated the proliferation of guns and who owns a gun, it saw a decrease in crime, suicides, etc. Hint, hint, Australia. Gun violence is expensive, both in human cost and monetary cost. It's more of a negative than a positive that is costing this nation. While the massacres have received greater attention, there's also the proliferation of guns, suicides, accidental shootings, and gun crimes that happen so much, from the cities to rural areas.
So cry more because you are WRONG!
Here's a fun fact: Gun ownership =/= the right to own a gun. You can still own a gun, provided you past a background check and are properly certified to hold one.
I don't oppose gun ownership. The interpretation is the issue. Here's a tissue for your hurt feelings. ;)
Just because one justice didn't agree does not make them right. Sorry that is not how it works. Sorry the second amendment is about gun ownership and if it was not then why didn't the government start confiscating guns then? Why has it taken so long to bring it up now? Because it is a hot point the liberals think can help them in an election. Nothing more, nothing less. .0009% of guns harm anyone each year. Sorry to say guns keep us safe and they are not dangerous to society. The stats prove it!
The stats prove otherwise in that owning a gun most likely leads to accidental shootings and suicides. Additionally, the U.S. experiences massacres and gun crime as a significant rate as compared to other developed countries. Gun violence is a significant issue and to downplay it is dangerous.
And it's not just one justice, it's other justices who have agreed with the same sentiment before and after Berger. It's also important to note that SCOTUS decisions are usually majority driven, meaning that some cases are usually 5-4. The conservative justices perverted the original meaning to fit the NRA narrative (during the 70s and 80s) and you're falling for it, suggesting that the government will start confiscating guns. In what way? Again, gun ownership =/= a right to own a gun. Again, you can own a gun without it being a right. Again, the second amendment's original purpose was about militias, NOT civilians owning guns.
@drunk_pi said:
If it makes you feel better, I don't oppose gun ownership. I just don't think it should be a right and the interpretation is based on false pretenses as stated by a supreme court official, as well as other historians and academics who studied the issue. And if it makes you feel better, some of the gun control methods are wonky and inefficient. I personally think that if a person wants to purchase a gun, they go through a week long certification process, which means those doing background checks have more time, and may dissuade individuals who are buying a gun on impulse. Also, people own guns in other countries, even with strict gun control laws. And those countries are free, if not freer than us. Everytime I hear the argument for owning a gun, it's "IT'S MY GODDAMN RIGHT, I'M AN AMERICAN!!!!1" It's a childish excuse that holds no meaning as evident with one of the posters who responded and argued that I'm a SJW and why they should listen to me, nevermind the link I posted with Warren Berger stating the obvious. They don't have to listen to me, just read the history behind it and realize it's all misleading.
First off, we do not need to justify a right. That thought process needs to go away regardless of the right in question.
What peaked my curiosity is your thought of requiring a week long certification (back ground check) before a firearm purchase. You are aware of why a firearm purchase takes much much less time than a week, right? No, I'm not talking because of it being a right. Don't take it as an attack or what have you but I am interesting in hearing your take.
@Solaryellow said:
@drunk_pi said:
If it makes you feel better, I don't oppose gun ownership. I just don't think it should be a right and the interpretation is based on false pretenses as stated by a supreme court official, as well as other historians and academics who studied the issue. And if it makes you feel better, some of the gun control methods are wonky and inefficient. I personally think that if a person wants to purchase a gun, they go through a week long certification process, which means those doing background checks have more time, and may dissuade individuals who are buying a gun on impulse. Also, people own guns in other countries, even with strict gun control laws. And those countries are free, if not freer than us. Everytime I hear the argument for owning a gun, it's "IT'S MY GODDAMN RIGHT, I'M AN AMERICAN!!!!1" It's a childish excuse that holds no meaning as evident with one of the posters who responded and argued that I'm a SJW and why they should listen to me, nevermind the link I posted with Warren Berger stating the obvious. They don't have to listen to me, just read the history behind it and realize it's all misleading.
First off, we do not need to justify a right. That thought process needs to go away regardless of the right in question.
What peaked my curiosity is your thought of requiring a week long certification (back ground check) before a firearm purchase. You are aware of why a firearm purchase takes much much less time than a week, right? No, I'm not talking because of it being a right. Don't take it as an attack or what have you but I am interesting in hearing your take.
It never was until the 70s, i.e. recently in U.S. history. Why is it a right? In what context is it a right in accordance to U.S. history, the original purpose, and what the founding fathers intended? Simply saying its a right doesn't mean jack when the original meaning is discussing militias. It doesn't mean jack when the NRA lobbied so hard to get its way so that the 2nd would be misinterpreted.
Not all gun sales require a certification process or a week-long wait, depending on the state. And the problem with background checks is that it takes time to process and that you're doing a background check using multiple agencies communicating with each other. I already said my part in what you quoted so read that.
The whole week-long thing is an example. Vox had a great article and video on it: https://www.vox.com/2019/9/11/20861019/gun-solution-background-check-licensing
@drunk_pi said:
It never was until the 70s, i.e. recently in U.S. history. Why is it a right? In what context is it a right in accordance to U.S. history, the original purpose, and what the founding fathers intended? Simply saying its a right doesn't mean jack when the original meaning is discussing militias. It doesn't mean jack when the NRA lobbied so hard to get its way so that the 2nd would be misinterpreted.
Not all gun sales require a certification process or a week-long wait, depending on the state. And the problem with background checks is that it takes time to process and that you're doing a background check using multiple agencies communicating with each other. I already said my part in what you quoted so read that.
The whole week-long thing is an example. Vox had a great article and video on it: https://www.vox.com/2019/9/11/20861019/gun-solution-background-check-licensing
That was a great way of essentially saying "I don't know."
What once took a fairly lengthy period of time is now compressed thanks to technology. In 1998 the NCIS (PICS here) system came into operation replacing the five day waiting period (handguns) thanks to the brady act. The process is not changed whether five minutes or five days. Your link even says background checks only make it more difficult. Placing a determinant amount of time is not offering anything productive.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment