Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Why? Adam Lanza executed the Sandy Hook shooting with handguns.

I thought the point of all of this outrage was because of mass shootings like Sandy Hook.

The semi-auto AR15 was found in his trunk and wasn't used in the shooting. He used the semi-auto handguns to kill people.

That has not been confirmed by officials. The last official word I heard/read was:

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

From my understanding (and I have may liberal friends that say the same thing) the gun control logic is that we don't need guns that can rapid fire and kill many people at once when the fact of the matter is death by fully auto machine guns are extremely low and death by even semi-auto rifles are low as well. The bulk of death by guns are by handgun and the large majority of them are gang related and committed by criminals who get their guns illegally anyway (it makes sense because they have absolutely no respect for the law).

So why pursue the argument of banning automatic and semi-automatic rifles when they aren't even the problem?

If your goal is to save people from guns that have potential to be dangerous then logic dictates that you would want to ban ALL guns or at the very least get to the root of the problem to actually make a dent in the 'death by gun' rate.

So let's say full auto and semi-autos were completely gone tomorrow and the decrease in gun death rate is miniscule at best, would you then support a push to ban ALL guns, to get a better desired result in death rate? I know you said you supported the second amendment to bear arms but I don't know, some people change their mind in an instant when they don't get their desired result. I don't know how you would act in that situation, so I'm asking...for clarification.

Well, I think there are different kinds of gun violence, with different approaches needed. Mass shooters tend to use assault-style weapons with high capacity magazine clips. The best approach would be to address the mental health issue, as most mass shooters tend to be mentally ill. But the mental health issue will take a long time to fix, perhaps decades. In the meantime, let's make it as difficult as possible for them to have access to such weapons. Assault-style weapons with high capacity magazines are not necessary for hunting or personal defense, so let's get rid of them.

Gang violence is a different type of violence. Yes, gang violence tends to involve handguns, but handguns are also the most common weapon for personal defense for law-abiding citizens. The approach here should include social programs to give urban youth more opportunities to succeed. This will also take a long time, so in the meantime, we should crack down on the black market sale of guns, and have universal background checks. We should also be taking a serious look at violence in music, movies and video games, and the effects these have on young developing minds.

Banning assault-style weapons/high capacity magazines won't magically solve all our problems - it is one step of many that need to be taken.

If you get a chance, please read my response to you in page 7. Thanks.

and mine on page 6

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

If you get a chance, please read my response to you in page 7. Thanks.

and mine on page 6

My response to your post would be the same as my response above.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

yes, i'm familiar with the 'legal aspect' of murder, what's your point?

i don't care what 'degree' you give it, it is still WILLFUL taking of a life, each time and every time.

call it whatever makes it easiest for you to swallow but it produces the same result.

there are NO laws restricting/limiting self-defense ... try again.

reply to post by Kashai

since further discussion would be off-topic, how 'bout just 2 examples ??
1861 - incarcertation of the entire Maryland legislature to prevent actions of secession.
www.civilwarhome.com...

improper/unlawful ratification of the 14th Amendment
www.civil-liberties.com...

and there are others ... should you wish to explore them, please start your own thread on the topic.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kashai

 

since further discussion would be off-topic, how 'bout just 2 examples ??
1861 - incarcertation of the entire Maryland legislature to prevent actions of secession.
www.civilwarhome.com...

improper/unlawful ratification of the 14th Amendment
www.civil-liberties.com...

and there are others ... should you wish to explore them, please start your own thread on the topic.

Thank you, I didn't want to derail into the abuses of power that the Federal Government has engaged in over the course of its existence. Here is one more and this one coming from the man that fought so hard for many of the freedoms:

Alien and Sedition Acts.....The Federal Government frequently probes and operates on the fringe of their delegated responsibilities.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Most gang violence is caused by drugs and the war on drugs has been a complete failure. Make them legal, violence on the street would drop considerably and we would lower our prison population. Aside from that, there's nothing else that need be done aside from educating the public on how to properly use a firearm.

In my opinion, any and all gun laws in America are unconstitutional. The second amendment is very clear when it comes to restrictions.

First, to the OP, good on Dennis and anyone one else who understands the Constitution and Bill of Rights and stands in support of them.

Now I have a question? Why is body count a factor? Doesn't any life ended prematurely deserve our grief and concern. Why is there only a call to action when a significant number die all at once? Yes it's a tragedy. But I'm of the opinion that all deaths are tragic. Any child killed is horrible, but only needs legislated if a certain threshold of deaths from one event happen? I'm not trying to be callous, or accuse anyone who is for banning some or all firearms of being callous, though I believe some pushing that agenda are. It just doesn't seem right to me that nobody cares about the 1000s of people who die violently if they die 1 or 2 at a time, but when you have a stack of bodies...then it matters, then something must be done. Sounds disingenuous to me and calls into the question the true motives for the proposed legislation.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Get real! Obama the Marxist redistributionist is not trying to quell fear. He is pretending that more gun control is going to fix the "problem", but his true agenda is to disarm the populace to make it easier to take over the country for his Marxist fellow travelers. .

It is classic "problem/reaction/solution" in the Hegelian dialectic.

reply to post by Honor93

yes, i'm familiar with the 'legal aspect' of murder

Apparently not.

i don't care what 'degree' you give it, it is still WILLFUL taking of a life, each time and every time.

Case in point.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.

You have to love the ignorance of the progressive mind. Maybe you should learn about the 2nd and why it is so important. Do you even understand how these weapons work and the bullet capacity? You sound like you have been brainwashed with fear and good intentions.




The founding fathers of this once great republic understood the weakness of man and that is why we have the 2nd. You are in fact a radical trying to change the very core of what this country was founded on.



I wish all progressives would study why we have the right to bear arms.

Originally posted by Taliesien333
Now I have a question? Why is body count a factor?

Because the nameless deaths that occur are not "news-worthy" on a national scale but give a tragedy and the politicians will swoop in like vultures eyes the following but not necessarily in this order:

Votes
Committee seats
Votes
Money
Votes
Power

Interestingly, President Obama is out in force framing the 2nd Amendment as something pertaining to hunting and hunting alone. Not self-defense, which is a Natural Right as a living being. Go figure right?!

reply to post by ModernAcademia

The right to bear arms isnt limited to guns. The second amendment has supreme court ruling changing the interpretation of it for federal government so control policies could be implemented.

TextThe Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1] In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

Perfectly legal. Militia is no longer used in government. So we can regulate the individuals right to bear firearms.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.

So the question begging to be asked then is: how do you separate the two? A car, fertilizer, or even a knife has its intended uses, but can be utilized for mass-murder; why not include them in this debate?

A car requires you to take a test and prove that you know how to operate it safely. Fertilizer can do nothing without several other components that get you put on a watch list if you purchase. Knives are more heavily legislated than guns in most cities.

It's funny that pro-gun conservatives keep bringing up comparisons like cars because their own example requires you to jump through the very hoops we want for guns in order to operate. Many liberals are pro-gun but we aren't pro-stupid. There's a difference and it's perfectly reasonable to request that buying a SKS or an AR15 or even a classic hunting rifle require some proof of non-stupid. Seriously, it's not that much to ask for.

I don't care if you carry; I just want to know that you know how to responsibly handle it. Like they do with cars.

reply to post by Honor93

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

www.law.cornell.edu...

This amendment was presented in July 20, 1868. It relates to the civil war and granted citizenship to anyone born here and that included slaves and the other one also relates to the civil war. Seriously friend could you have provided something that happens when at least someone involved is alive..

Beyond that of course there is the rest of my presentation which none of you have responded to.

You have not provided anything to validate your point the details of these two issues are hearsay.

To be clear it is not of topic is lends to the authenticy of your claims that "someone is trying to take
away your guns".

Perhaps the problem is "somoeone took your slaves away"

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

my, oh my, could you be any more clueless ??

the 14th was not lawfully/Constitutionally ratified.
that is the truth, whether or not you like it.

because you simply refuse to stay on topic i choose to terminate this exchange.

should you choose to venture back on topic, carry on.

the 14th isn't the 2nd. your other nonsense isn't related to Dennis or the 2nd and since you persist, you might want to review the T&Cs.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kashai

 

my, oh my, could you be any more clueless ??

the 14th was not lawfully/Constitutionally ratified.
that is the truth, whether or not you like it.

because you simply refuse to stay on topic i choose to terminate this exchange.

should you choose to venture back on topic, carry on.

the 14th isn't the 2nd. your other nonsense isn't related to Dennis or the 2nd and since you persist, you might want to review the T&Cs.

My impression of your response is that you provided data related to a time in history, when white Caucasians in general insisted they were the only one's who had souls. That you wish to believe freind, that this would constitute. That today there is some way the US constituion of the United States would be violated in relation to guns. Despite that History, i would never support such and amendment and no of no one who would.

However for reasons I cannot discuss publically, I can tell you that what happed at Sandy Hook Elementary School really did happen.

My responses as based upon that fact and I morn the death of those children as if they were my own

Any thoughts?

I can tell you that one child was so badly in relation to, damaged to the face. That the only thing that was left was his eyes and his nose, the rest of his head was blown away.

We as a nation despite our differences have to find a way.

Based upon state law where dear hunting is possible how many bullets are you legaly allowed to carry in a clip????????

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I think there are different kinds of gun violence

What do you mean by different kinds of gun violence? Are we talking about gun related homicides? I was with my argument.

Mass shooters tend to use assault-style weapons

Again...what's the actual goal? To prevent mass shootings or to prevent homicides? I think that's a legitimate question. 75+ percent of gun related homicides are hand guns. I understand addressing them separately.... but why would the drastically less significant (in terms of deaths) take priority? I really feel the horribleness of these school shootings are clouding the logic here.

The best approach would be to address the mental health issue, as most mass shooters tend to be mentally ill.

I think in their case yes. Difficult to resolve this problem that's for sure.

Assault-style weapons with high capacity magazines are not necessary for hunting or personal defense, so let's get rid of them.

Wouldn't that depend on what you were defending against?
Sure typically home security wouldn't call for them. Actually I think shotgun is probably the best.

I am highly skeptic of how effective a ban would be towards criminals. I think it would only strengthen the black market. As can be seen in other non-gun examples. I think it would only work if they were literally gotten rid of.

Gang violence is a different type of violence.

The end result is still bodily harm and often death. But my argument wasn't towards gang violence. Just the homicide stats in general. 75+ percent is not just gang.

but handguns are also the most common weapon for personal defense for law-abiding citizens.

AND the most common gun they are defending against! If 'assault weapons' were banned. People would still be defending themselves primarily against handguns.

we should crack down on the black market sale of guns, and have universal background checks.

I support this. This infringes on the Right apparently but I don't care We should do background checks. Also, people should get their right to own a gun taking away (length, punishment meets the crime) once any violence is shown. Say a man beats his wife up. His rights to own a gun should be revoked for a time. I support guns, of any kind, to law-abiding citizens that are not violent. If violence is shown they should lose the "privilege".

Really I don't think laws have much affect on anyone but people that abide by them in general i.e not criminals. We should instead focus on dismantling the black market. But the truth of the matter is, most of these types of crimes happen as a result of societal stress. Poverty breeds it. Root cause, but of course difficult to tackle without drastic changes.

So to repeat myself. I think citizens should be allowed to own any type of gun. Should have to have a background check. Any history of violence should be a disqualifier (at least for a period of time). Unless guns themselves are being physically eliminated, there is a need to defend against guns and if someone wants a more powerful gun for home security I see no reason to disallow it so long as they are law-abiding citizens without a history of violence. Criminals don't follow laws, hit them hard on their own domain (the black market). Prevention of school shootings could be addressed by more patrolling officers assigned to schools.

We should also be taking a serious look at violence in music, movies and video games, and the effects these have on young developing minds.

Mortal Kombat, Rambo, and Metallica eh? I seriously doubt it will be a fruitful venture, but I am not against anyone exploring the idea.

Here is some personal testimony. Perhaps myopic....you can be the judge.

I very much partook in all those things at a young age. Listened to heavy rock. Watched violent movies. Played violent video games. And when I say young I mean not even a teenager. I was free to watch rated R action movies at 10. Extreme right? Either I have a very strong resilience to being violent or this theory of violent media causing violence is just not a correct one. I have never once, outside of martial art tournaments, been violent. I don't have violent thoughts either. I am tell this day a huge fan of horror movies. I don't desire beheading people, drinking blood, or hacking people up with a hatchet. Why? Because when I watch them I know it's fantasy. And I know doing that in real life would be bad. I am also a good person, so don't have the desire to do bad to begin with. I think for violent media to have such an effect one would have to be lacking the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

Banning assault-style weapons... it is one step of many that need to be taken.

It would be better solved by casting them back into the fiery chasm from whence they came Frodo I trust you to use a griffon this time