Dems stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote

a reply to: neo96

Yawn.

I was referring to the constant use of the antique term "commies."

The rest of your post is merely your usual screed, which I am tired of correcting, however:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

SCOTUS - DC v. Heller (2008)

a reply to: luthier

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic that was about the DEMOCRATS trying to subvert the US constitution.

ELECTED LEADERS, and throwing a hissy fit until they get their way.

That is not even really about doing anything for the benefit of the people.

Just what they THINK will 'win' them 2016.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: neo96

Let them sit there until they rot.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: neo96

Let them sit there until they rot.

Let them?

How about chaining them to the floor! LOL.

What a sorry pile of human garbage!

The civil rights hero and wounded war veteran among them would surely appreciate your sentiment but would probably have enough class not to return it in kind to you.

I'm thinking the sorry pile of human garbage is a lot closer to the two of you than DC.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Clearly the SCOTUS.

Doesn't know what SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,DENY,DISPARAGE, and they sure don't know what the 14th means.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Then again I really don't expect too much from POLITICAL appointees.

a reply to: neo96

So Donald Trump the presidential candidate for the Republicans going even further than the Democrats to circumvent the constitution is ok?

Basically this is a political trolling piece you have written.

Funny because the guy you can elect for president in the Republican party is proposing the exact same thing the Democrats are only kicked up a notch.

a reply to: neo96

You don't know what the 14th means.

a reply to: neo96

RIght, you know more than the entire Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia.

You really crack me up.

EDIT: And "political appointees" ... I guess you haven't read Article III lately?

Or is that one of the parts of the Constitution you don't personally care for and is thus unimportant?

LOL.

a reply to: luthier

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tell me more how I 'don't'.

a reply to: neo96

Here, I want to watch your virtual head explode ...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

COTUS, ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2

So the people who are doing the sit in because of the public outcry and are representing their constituents are somehow traders?

"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?"

Guns

And that the majority of Americans support some kind of control does not matter to you? Why should the minority hold the majority hostage when it comes to guns?

a reply to: neo96

So using this as an example, if these lists (the ones that currently do not require due process to have ones name be added) are used to deny a person of their right to keep and bear arms, what happens to the firearms the person might already own? Are they expected to be deprived of that private property too? If that is expected, then it seems this is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment as well. Since, it will "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I am not a Constitutional professor like our current POTUS, but that is a constitutional violation, is it not?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Like wise.

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...

Then by the anti gunner 'logic'.

Computers would be banned,

The Internets would be banned.

Every modern convenience used to practice the FIRST.

So how about we treat the FIRST like the second.

Back to pencils,paper, and books.

After all 'in common use at the time'.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816.

takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...

So WHICH way is it G ?

Do we turn the FIRST back the stone age ?

After all as you pointed out.

And quoted HERE.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

a reply to: neo96

What is due process?

What is an enemy of the state?

What is war?

What is an enemy combatant?

If you declare allegiance to another state have you revoked your rights if that state is an enemy of the US?

What is the definition of a state? Does a soveriegn state need a traditional gov or is it an ideal carried by its people?

These are things that get deliberated.

a reply to: Krakatoa

It depends what they are charged with. Hence the need to discuss due process.

Like I said if we can debate the meaning of a state or sovereignty then some gangs and terrorists that control territory have a different battle to deal with.

At some point not adjusting your battle strategy when your loosing is just stupid.

How to do this with due process should be the focus.

a reply to: neo96

No one has argued for computers or the Internet to be banned, and no one, outside of Diane Feinstein, has argued for guns to be banned.

The First does have reasonable limitations. Many.

LIbel, slander, refusal to bake gay-cakes, human sacrifice, drug use, incitement to violence, et. al.

You're off in the Land of Absurdity again from my perspective. When you come back, let me know.

a reply to: luthier

But, when added to the list, there was no "charge". To have a charge, you need due process. You need a judge involved...a court, a hearing, etc... All things related to due process. But for some, that is too cumbersome and takes too long. They want it NOW , they want expediency. Well, tyranny is quite expedient....just not compatible with our system of justice or the supreme laws known as the U.S. Constitution. Can it be changed? Of course. But not by passing unconstitutional laws, and "figuring it out later". A "little bit" of tyranny, to me, is too much since it sets a precedent to be used to expand and increase it's scope and influence.

I say, no more.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The only people that live in the land of ABSURDITY.

Are the Democrats.

a reply to: shredderofsouls

The goal of having a Republic instead of a Democracy is so that the majority can't vote the rights of the minority away.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

The only people that live in the land of ABSURDITY.

Are the Democrats.

Your partisan obsessions are well-noted.

If you want to talk about the realities of the Second Amendment, in terms of actual law and the US Constitution, let me know.