What can we as individuals or a group do about gun violence? - Page 111
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 111 of 115 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111112113 ... LastLast
Results 2,201 to 2,220 of 2293
  1. #2201
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    6,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5521
    Likes (Received)
    5755

    Default

    And as for the nonsense about "no punishment", "just filling out paperwork", here is what owning a firearm in Boston means. They have imposed additional restrictions above and beyond what the state does.

    Owning a firearm in Boston | Boston.gov

    If you live in Boston you need a special license in addition to a Class A LTC in order to possess an "assault weapon" as defined here.

    https://www.boston.gov/sites/default...boston-act.pdf

    And here is what our left wing Attorney General "enacted into law" by executive decree. Prior to her actions AR-15 type rifles that lacked certain features such as folding stocks, bayonet lugs and flash hiders had been legally sold in Mass. for decades. She has graciously allowed existing owners to keep them - FOR NOW.

    Enforcing the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban | Mass.gov

  2. #2202
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    559
    Likes (Received)
    2981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mhajicek View Post
    Wow, this ignorant old trope again. This has been explained to you repeatedly with solid documentation. Just stop.
    really, so solid documentation that the 2nd amendment is the only totally unrestricted right in the constitution


    not

  3. #2203
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    6,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5521
    Likes (Received)
    5755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    really, so solid documentation that the 2nd amendment is the only totally unrestricted right in the constitution


    not
    So please explain your views on 1st amendment restrictions. I don't see any restrictions listed there, except on government.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    If you have time please also explain the restrictions on the other enumerated rights in Amendment 1 through 10.

  4. #2204
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    El Paso, Texas USA
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    17

    Default

    Amendments do not limit the people, they are there to limit the government no more no less. My $0.02

  5. Likes Kurt Learning, mhajicek, lagweezle liked this post
  6. #2205
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    559
    Likes (Received)
    2981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    So please explain your views on 1st amendment restrictions. I don't see any restrictions listed there, except on government.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    If you have time please also explain the restrictions on the other enumerated rights in Amendment 1 through 10.
    I did

    Libel is a limit on free speech

    Freedom of Religion is limited to practices we otherwise find legal[no religious exemption for bigamy, human sacrifice, or many many other things]


    All the rights have limits, and most of those limits are not explicit in the Constitution

    The 2nd has a purpose listed, unlike the others

    In the words of well known leftist Antonin Scalia:

    Justice Scalia’s opinion set out careful limits:

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


    So,you are full of crap, stop reading militia websites and alt right conspiracy blogs

  7. #2206
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    559
    Likes (Received)
    2981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnfalco View Post
    Amendments do not limit the people, they are there to limit the government no more no less. My $0.02
    You are fundamentally correct, but there are, err limitations on those limitations if you will

  8. #2207
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    6,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5521
    Likes (Received)
    5755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnfalco View Post
    Amendments do not limit the people, they are there to limit the government no more no less. My $0.02
    Exactly. And the individual rights are only limited where they conflict with the rights of other individuals, not the "rights" of government or "society". Here is how Thomas Jefferson explained it.

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

    Freedom of speech does not include the right to commit perjury because perjury violates another person’s right to a fair trial.

    Freedom of speech does not include the right to commit fraud because fraud violates another person’s right to informed consent when transferring their property.

    Under the concepts of individual liberty enshrined in the Constitution every individual has the right to do or say anything they like as long as doing so does not violate the equal rights of another person or harm them against their will. And when such violation of rights or causation of harm is claimed it must be PROVEN before action can be taken against the offender.

    The reason gun control violates that concept is because all such laws are based on "preventing" harm or "protecting society". As literally hundreds of millions of people have proven throughout our history an individual can own firearms without infringing on the rights of others. When they DO infringe, through robbery, injury, or murder they can be deprived of life or liberty under due process. Our entire system is based on punishing offenders, not restricting freedoms to "prevent" crime (that may never have happened anyway).

  9. Likes mhajicek, johnfalco liked this post
  10. #2208
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    559
    Likes (Received)
    2981

    Default

    And even when he was busy NOT agreeing with you, Scalia was full of crap :


    By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion: “Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”

    But Scalia was wrong. Two new databases of English writing from the founding era confirm that “bear arms” is a military term. Non-military uses of “bear arms” are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.

    A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.
    AD

    But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. Writing about the Second Amendment in 1995, historian Garry Wills put it succinctly: “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”

    And in 1840, in an early right- *to-bear-arms case, Tennessee Supreme Court Judge Nathan Green wrote: “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

    Then there’s this exchange during oral arguments in Heller. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said that “bear arms” meant to carry them outside the home. Justice David Souter asked him, “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?” Clement replied, “I would say that and so would [James] Madison and so would [Thomas] Jefferson.”
    AD

    But Souter wasn’t convinced: “In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...bd6_story.html

  11. Likes TheOldCar liked this post
  12. #2209
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    559
    Likes (Received)
    2981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    And as for the nonsense about "no punishment", "just filling out paperwork", here is what owning a firearm in Boston means. They have imposed additional restrictions above and beyond what the state does.

    Owning a firearm in Boston | Boston.gov

    If you live in Boston you need a special license in addition to a Class A LTC in order to possess an "assault weapon" as defined here.

    https://www.boston.gov/sites/default...boston-act.pdf

    And here is what our left wing Attorney General "enacted into law" by executive decree. Prior to her actions AR-15 type rifles that lacked certain features such as folding stocks, bayonet lugs and flash hiders had been legally sold in Mass. for decades. She has graciously allowed existing owners to keep them - FOR NOW.

    Enforcing the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban | Mass.gov
    WE have discussed the AWB and our AG, and I have made it clear previously that I have little use for either

    The AWB is no more useful than a ban on blue guns

    I don't particularly understand the limit to, what is it 10, on magazine size, which is very different from saying I don't support magazine size limits. I do suppose, tho, if you did not get the bad guy with 9 shots, I do not know if a bigger magazine is going to do you any good.

    Our AG is why so many vote for a Republican Governor, just to keep a lid on it.

  13. #2210
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1788
    Likes (Received)
    924

    Default

    Gun control laws are to the second amendment as prior restraint is to the first:

    Prior restraint - Wikipedia

  14. #2211
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    559
    Likes (Received)
    2981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mhajicek View Post
    Gun control laws are to the second amendment as prior restraint is to the first:

    Prior restraint - Wikipedia
    The courts disagree

  15. #2212
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    254
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    69
    Likes (Received)
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    The courts disagree
    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to overpower unconstitutional court decisions.

  16. Likes mhajicek liked this post
  17. #2213
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1788
    Likes (Received)
    924

    Default

    The courts also said that slavery was legal, and that the underground railroad was illegal. Who's right?

  18. Likes adh2000 liked this post
  19. #2214
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    6,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5521
    Likes (Received)
    5755

    Default

    It is all fine to play word games with the meaning of "bear arms" but we know what the authors of the 2nd Amendment meant because they told us.

    Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
    “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

    James Madison, of Virginia:
    "The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

    Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

    There are plenty more, but these give a pretty clear view of the true meaning.

    The Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" yet in places like Massachusetts you can't even KEEP arms anymore without a government issued license. Infringed? Hell yes!

  20. Likes mhajicek, CalG, Yan Wo liked this post
  21. #2215
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Republic of Arizonia
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    533

    Default

    there-roads.jpgpolice-military.jpg

    The more that I read, the more intrigued, I become with history.

    My status, as well as my fellow countrymen follows a hierarchy.

    Following the logic of Law, Customs and Language, I can say this

    I, am one of the people, therefore my rights existed before the constitution.

    ( for simplicity)

    The people, created a public trust by the constitution, and limited it's power.

    The people, are not under the trust, for this would violate a Master / Servant relationship.

    The Servant / trust can, never rise or be allowed to rise above the Master.

    When the servant successfully exceeds it limitations, you have tyranny.

    That is why the second amendment exists,

    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.


    We, no longer understand the words that are contained within the Constitution of the United States of America.

    To understand it completely, and to see the genius of the document, one must sit down with a Black's Law Legal Dictionary first to fourth edition on one hand and a copy of the document in question.

    Lawyers may speak, but they twist the words so the meaning is lost. The same goes for the English language and Customs.

    Over Time the original changes.

  22. Likes Scottl, mhajicek liked this post
  23. #2216
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    5,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mhajicek View Post
    The courts also said that slavery was legal, and that the underground railroad was illegal. Who's right?
    Don't forget "separate but equal"

    The supreme court has at times been intelligent but when they pull a boner they do it up bigtime.

  24. #2217
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    386
    Likes (Received)
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJ H View Post
    Growing up on a family farm in a rural part of a state run by liberal citiots, my us vs them attitude was set in stone a long time ago. Rural people in new York are forced to live by laws made for them by people who have no idea what they do or how they do it. Emperor Cuomo is doing the best he can to bring an already struggling industry to it's knees. If you have over 200 head of cattle you have to lease so many acres per head and document how many acres you spread manure on, how many gallons of it, that week's rainfall, which way the wind was blowing. They're trying to pass legislation to tax cow farts, and he wants to unionize unskilled farm workers. There's plenty of people that share his same ideals and want to control our lives but have never set foot outside of NYC. These are the people that I'm supposed to make amends with to discuss "common sense" gun laws? I'm sorry but they have already reached "I do not negotiate with terrorists" status with me. The tofu farters can vote for whatever they want ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    While that's a colorful bit of writing there, the only place the word "amend" shows up in my post is when it's part of the word "amendment", and the word "common" doesn't show up in my post at all, and I'm pretty sure I never brought up anything about negotiating, so I'm not sure which post you think you're responding to, but it doesn't appear to be mine.

    However, seeing as your reply is riddled with hyperbole and insults, maybe it's best you not serve as a representative to try and educate the ignorant so they understand just how difficult farming is, and how misguided the laws are, and how it affects them. Clearly it's much better to let the ignorant folk continue to vote to make your life worse while making sure none of them have an interest in seeing how it makes the situation worse for everyone.

  25. #2218
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    5,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lagweezle View Post
    However, seeing as your reply is riddled with hyperbole and insults, maybe it's best you not serve as a representative to try and educate the ignorant ...
    The ignorant refuse to be educated (e.g. Hillary, gustafson, et al) so I don't see where it matters much. May as well go hyperbolic and get some fun out of it

  26. #2219
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Illinios
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    As I haven't read this entire thread I'd imagine, or hope, this has been said before.
    Violence can't be enacted by an inanimate object.
    Violence-
    Noun
    behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or something.
    strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive nateral force.
    the unlawful exercise of pyshical force or intimidation by the exibition of such force.

    The choice of tools to impart violence upon our fellow man has changed but the will to do so
    has existed forever.
    If we were truly interested in making a difference we may check the numbers of deaths a year to find that
    "gun violence" is at the bottom.

    R

  27. Likes Scottl liked this post
  28. #2220
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    559
    Likes (Received)
    2981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mhajicek View Post
    The courts also said that slavery was legal, and that the underground railroad was illegal. Who's right?
    I would imagine, just as those decisions were later overruled, so will heller...........


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •