And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dlbott
 


Uh uh dude. The gun lobby is saying, "Regulate the access to guns of the mentally disturbed." Well how do you do that without interfering with others? You can't. You want the gun suck up the intrusion. Or back off.




posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Most are familiar with this,

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.

In standard use of English the comma denotes separating elements in a series. The militia and people are two entirely different elements in the sentence above as found in the Constitution.

It says the "militia" is to be regulated. It says separately the people's rights shall not be infringed.

What part do-gooders, government officials and, others do not get about this plain English is really beyond me.

The founders obviously never intended ANY regulation on private ownership of arms.

They clearly intended regulation of militia due their abhorrence to standing armies.

In the part of the second amendment pertaining to "The People" please point out the EXACT wording that lets you perceive its Constitutional to limit, regulate, register or legislate anything at all to do with arms.

Show me those words please.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by dlbott
 


Uh uh dude. The gun lobby is saying, "Regulate the access to guns of the mentally disturbed." Well how do you do that without interfering with others? You can't. You want the gun suck up the intrusion. Or back off.


Short answer is,

If proven to not be able to operate as an adult or if proven to have committed crimes then a loss of Constitutional freedoms can occur.

The important distinction is its on a case by case basis and not blanket violation of otherwise law abiding people.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer
 


Tell me how you control the access to guns to mentally disturbed individuals without checks?



Do we perform mental checks on everyone before purchasing a gun?

What about mental issues that have nothing to do with violent behavior?

PTSD?

Insomnia?

Nope. Freedom sometimes means being free to be stupid.
edit on 27-11-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


The more this is tried the more gun believers get pushed into a corner. Last I checked America has the most guns per capita than any other country on earth. Is it really wise try to poke an angry hornets nest



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Uh huh and what about delusional people making weapons in their houses? I've been following this arms BS for the whole thing. The gun crowd says it's mental health issues. But by your definition you can't touch the sick. IT'S YOUR RIGHT. Can't have it both ways man.




The number of folks that could make a weapon at home or out in the shop is very, very small. But it represents the capacity to make weapons without dependence on a larger weapons manufacturer. This could become a trend with more and more small machinist setting up small manufacturing operation. This preempt by the rewording really only suggests that they see this as a potential problem in the face of their weapons confiscation wet dreams.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


Since when has this administration gave a rats rear about the constitution or any part of it that differs or slows from their power grab??? Just like any major changes it will start small then increase in scope and scale. I care not of the ones that say this is no big deal, enjoy your insight or whatever you call it, fundamentally transforming this country will take small steps at first then??? Yes, I too compare us to Britian and the other theoretically superior people, we are next for the progressive targeting. I just love these naysayers that think we can just let the founding documents run in automatic with non wavering boundries, there are those whom want us to be totally conforming to their every thought and whim. 2/3rds mean nothing when nuclear options go steroids. Be fine with it all, it means nothing was heard well in 1939 germany, and we are hearing the exact same thing in 2013 Amerikka...



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Spookybelle

ketsuko

Spookybelle
reply to post by macman
 


How exactly is the second amendment under attack here?

The second is probably the safest part of the Constitution because of recent Court rulings. Its basically untouchable now without the Court reversing a decision.

And that isn't likely to happen.

Because registration is the first step to confiscation.

Look at New York.


New York cannot confiscate your weapons, the Supreme Court has said so.

There is no history of registering directly leading to confiscation. They made us all register our vehicles yet they never took them away.


Yet New York City is currently attempting to confiscate guns:

thelibertydigest.com...

I foresee a big lawsuit against NYC and their attempt to trample the 2nd Amendment.


edit on 27-11-2013 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer
 


Tell me how you control the access to guns to mentally disturbed individuals without checks?



Its certainly not the answer to abridge everyone else's Constitutional rights - be kind of like revoking all airline pilots licenses because a few fanatically crazy folks ran some into buildings.

Deny access to the airplanes and we'll not have to worry of that again will we?

Mental Health is in severe need of reform as its drug driven catch and release program just does not work.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Whoa, we got the "spin cycle" here. Every time this comes up the gun advocates say, "It's the mentally unstable, not the guns or responsible gun owners." Now we say, "OK, let's look at that closer." Gun advocates say, "Hey, that's an infringement on my rights." If so your whole gun argument goes out the _ Then it's, "I want my guns and I don't care about anything else."

Spin that.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by dlbott
 


Uh uh dude. The gun lobby is saying, "Regulate the access to guns of the mentally disturbed." Well how do you do that without interfering with others? You can't. You want the gun suck up the intrusion. Or back off.


The trouble with that stance is that mental disturbance can and will be decided on the basis of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) standards. It is the tool of the psych industry, and as far as I know, contains no DSM number for "normal." Sorry guys, but there is or will be a push to have gun interest/use/ownership defined as a mental disease condition. The enemies of freedom are really clever at moving the goal posts.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Lazarus Short
The enemies of freedom are really clever at moving the goal posts.


Dude, it's the gun advocates saying that.....for now. What will they come up with tomorrow?



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

intrepid
Whoa, we got the "spin cycle" here. Every time this comes up the gun advocates say, "It's the mentally unstable, not the guns or responsible gun owners." Now we say, "OK, let's look at that closer." Gun advocates say, "Hey, that's an infringement on my rights." If so your whole gun argument goes out the _ Then it's, "I want my guns and I don't care about anything else."

Spin that.


"I want my guns and I don't care about anything else."

What part of freedom are you confused with?

Freedom is a double-edged sword. I've written extensively on that. I'd rather have my freedoms and the risks that it carries rather than. . . . . .

Oh wait!

Even without freedoms, murders are still committed. So even if they took all our freedoms, there would still be people who would want to hurt other people.

You can't predict, anticipate "crazy". It just can't be done. You can look at current crazy people an say, "No." No guns for you. If these crazy people can fake sane long enough to commit "crazy" acts, then lock 'em up, shoot 'em.

But don't punish, restrict, inhibit the freedoms and liberties of everyone just because you want to control guns!



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Maybe we should put all the guns in jail then?

Thing is only criminals use guns in crimes. They don't care what the law says about it. If they can't buy one they will steal it or buy it on the black market.

The mistake is thinking that there is some way to prevent that by law.

ETA: Law abiding gun owners know this and thats what upsets them. The law is directed at them, not the criminal.

edit on 27-11-2013 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Spookybelle
reply to post by macman
 


How exactly is the second amendment under attack here?

The second is probably the safest part of the Constitution because of recent Court rulings. Its basically untouchable now without the Court reversing a decision.

And that isn't likely to happen.


This crap Obama is doing, is to get that nationwide registry happening, and then when they try to do a total gun ban, they will have a nice list with names and addresses of gun owners. That is a direct infringement of the 2nd amendment.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by dlbott
 


Uh uh dude. The gun lobby is saying, "Regulate the access to guns of the mentally disturbed." Well how do you do that without interfering with others? You can't. You want the gun suck up the intrusion. Or back off.


I don't care what the gun lobby says, I am saying helping mentally challenged people should have been talked about years ago. The guns used at sandy hook was bought legally. The point is his mother and all the neighbors around him knew he had many problems and needed help. He should have never had access to the guns. They were not his, he did not buy them.

This is how it is in most cases dealing with mentally challenged. They do not buy the guns in most cases.

Sooner or later what is going to happen is the people who allowed them access to the guns are going to be held accountable. In the colorado case no he should not been allowed to buy guns. In that case the college professor could be held accountable because she did not come forward. There was no right to privacy issue with the notebook he sent her.

I think we are agreeing on some areas lol... I was trying to be respectful with the boss comment, I guess you did not take it that way since I became ah ah dude, lol... there was no offense meant there.

this is a very complicated issue and one that I believe each state should deal with in their own way.

All I am saying is when hospitals take the mentally challenged out of state and drop them off on the street rather than deal with them we have problems.

The Bot



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

beezzer
But don't punish, restrict, inhibit the freedoms and liberties of everyone just because you want to control guns!


Dude, I'm using the words of the gun advocates. Not my words or anyone else. Every time a mass shooting happens the same argument comes out. "It's not the guns or responsible gun owners." OK, fine. Put in place stipulations that will minimize these peoples access to firearms. "NO way man. That infringes on gun owners rights." Uh huh. That tells me that "responsible gun owners" don't give a # about anything except their guns.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by dlbott
 


Uh uh dude. The gun lobby is saying, "Regulate the access to guns of the mentally disturbed." Well how do you do that without interfering with others? You can't. You want the gun suck up the intrusion. Or back off.



This could be done with a registry of the mentally ill same as felons and done during the regular background checks that already exists. A blanket sort of trough the hoops 2,4 and 6 to include fingerprints for the gun buying population at large is BS. The number of convicted felons that actually try to buy weapons over the counter is extremely small. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a stipulation to federal power and thus it would be a violation of the right to allow any federal record keeping on actual gun buying activity. In fact to include oversight of the 2nd under a contraband regulation bureau known as the ATF is a large load of BS and was purposely done to place a constitutional amendment under a sort of duress.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


No sane person wants a deranged individual to have access to guns. There is no easy way right now in the US to prevent the wrong people from getting guns without trampling the rights of law abiding citizen.

There are far too many guns on the streets and in the hands of bad people right now to make laws that prevent the law abiding citizen from being able to acquire a firearm and ammo in a timely manner.

When a law abiding citizen can not arm himself legally, yet a criminal can and will illegally, we the law abiding citizens loose both security and liberty.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
They cannot deny you a fire arm via purchase if you make your own. I'm bet they see this as a big hole in their control plan that needs to be plugged. Technology is changing the game.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join