And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

Urantia1111

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

Its nobody's damned business if a gun owner is "mentally disturbed" or not.

Well then don't blame the mentally ill next time. Blame what everyone else is....guns.

Oops. "Shot" yourself in the foot.

MrSpad


When you look at our history gun control and regulations were far more common in our early years then they are. A series of laws after the revolition made owning of or selling guns to certain people illegal. Blacks, Indians,certian immigrant groups, indentured servants, the poor etc. In some of the colonies law existed that people who were considered not loyal could not own guns. Much like many things in the Constitution these freedoms were only for certain people. The Goverment even conducted door to door gun census for the first hundred years. And your personal guns could be confiscated and place in a central location for town defense. In the wild west guns were banned in most towns. The militia and the people (white males) were one and the same after the revolution. Guns bans on certain groups were seem as valid since those groups were not part of the militia. Of couse like all parts of the Constitution it is up the courts to decide and that can change of the decades. Now of course we have a much more open view of the what the 2nd means, less about a well regulated militia and more about people owning guns. Now anybody and everybody has got a gun. As a responsible gun owner I wish their was some sort of mandatory safety training required along with refreshers every few years teaching people how to handle them safely and how to secure them so kids stop shooting each other.

Gun clubs were once part of extracurricular activities at schools and did teach gun safety and proper use. I also believe it every gun owning parents responsibility to do the same for their children. Mine are. The is the Appleseed program for those unable or unwilling to train their children and its great benefit to new responsible owners.

Instead of mandatory anything I'd like to see it encouraged lets say with a tax incentive or something along those line, quit punishing the innocent and encourage them instead.

As far as history goes and you lay out a cogent case, it does not justify past, present or future violations of the constitution.

Be like saying 3/5's vote was done in the past so some regulation is desirable or since our past allowed constitutional violation of women's rights some regulation is ok.

Those past instances were unconstitutional then just as they are today. Then as now people did the expedient thing rather than the hard work getting to the core of their perceived problems in clear violation of the Constitution.

Identifying, treating and following up on the mentally violent and getting them abjucated as such with periodic court review might be in order to reduce spree killing. It won't eliminate.

Same for criminals, time after time its the repeat offender who's using guns in crime. Mandatory non plea bargain penalties should be in order so they are removed from society for 10 years?

intrepid

beezzer
What part of "infringing on freedoms" don't you get?

I'm not debating that. I'm debating what "freedom" really means. If it means that you can buy a gun any which way you like and a dude gets killed by one in another area, or the same one for that matter, it's a pretty exclusive "freedom". Yours, not theirs.

I and everyone else carry that same risk, living in a free society.

beezzer
I and everyone else carry that same risk, living in a free society.

Beez, you know I respect you. Do you really think that's freedom?

I like your argument Trep, but it also has a spin to it as well. Like Beez said, part of the price of freedom is a bit of insecurity. One of the most heavily regulated weapon in the US is the automobile. There is absolutely zero protections in place to keep a car out of the hands of the mentally ill despite several occurrences of people driving into crowds. And very few protections to keep a car out of the hands of a drunk driver and those with serious medical conditions that could leave them incapacitated behind the wheel.

Looking at the proposed laws.

1) You cannot manufacture a firearm with intent to sell it. It is to remain for personal use but can be transferred as either a gift or inheritance. Most personally made firearms do not have a serial number nor are they required. Anything else is illegal. So there is little point in registration of a self made firearm. And before it is asked, if you cannot legally own a firearm for any reason then it is illegal to make one. In some states a personally made firearm can be sold person to person after a certain amount of time so long as it was not done for profit.

2) Personal transfer/selling of personally owned firearms. Some states do require a notice of transfer and it is always in the interest of the seller to make a bill of sale. Even if it is just a note in a ledger or piece of notebook paper that you sold that particular gun to so-and-so on such-and such date. It protects you the seller in case that firearm is used in a crime. Why the law exists as it does now. As a private citizen you have property rights, including the right to sell or gift property that you wholly own. Unlike a car or real estate, you can wholly own a firearm and no longer have to pay a yearly use tax on it to the actual owners (which is the State), like you do on cars and land. That is also why title transfers have to be done on cars and land and filed with the State. When you move to another state (Ohio to Florida for example) the State transfers ownership to the other State which in turn issues you a title. In theory, you could make your own car from scratch and might not have to register it with the State. But good luck getting a court to agree with you that you do not have to play the game. And yes, since the State does legally own the vehicle a police officer can in course of their duties commandeer your car and does not have to pay for damages incurred. At least not in Ohio.

So the question remains, should registration and a background check be required in either case? 1) no. 2) no. As to why, in neither case is the firearm being transferred for commercial reasons.

As a side note regarding the 2nd. If you check Article 1, Congress is supposed to call forth, arm and regulate the militia by providing training and promotion within the ranks. Under the 2nd. The militia referred to is private law abiding citizens being able to take immediate need to protect against local insurrection, invasion or domestic enemies of the people. That is to say, that if a government body (or insurrection or invasion by a foreign force) were to try to suppress the rights of the people, the people have the legal right to remove it by force of arms and the right to arms cannot be infringed upon in order to perform that civic duty. Under the 2nd, the people of the US could remove the entire sitting government over the ACA if they chose to do so, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court, because the Federal government does not have the legal power to mandate the purchase of anything...including firearms, but especially insurance policies which are service contracts.

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

Tell me what mentally disturbed individual is going to make a gun then go register it. The only people this will effect are those who will not commit the crimes these supposedly prevent.

intrepid

Urantia1111

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

Its nobody's damned business if a gun owner is "mentally disturbed" or not.

Well then don't blame the mentally ill next time. Blame what everyone else is....guns.

Oops. "Shot" yourself in the foot.

I've never blamed the mentally ill for anything. People get shot for a lot of reasons. Mental illness need not be involved.

intrepid

beezzer
I and everyone else carry that same risk, living in a free society.

Beez, you know I respect you. Do you really think that's freedom?

Yes! Freedom carries risks!

I don't know how else to phrase it!

Freedom isn't safety and security, it's determining what you want, how you want to be safe and secure.

Intrepid, much love brother, but I think you're willing to cede one to obtain the other.

OK. Let me get this straight. The gun lobby has said after EVERY mass shooting, "We need to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill." "Guns don't kill people. Mentally ill people with guns do." EVERY time. Go ahead. Do a search, you'll see I'm right on this. BUT when it's proposed that SOMETHING will be done about it NOW we've got, "Hey, that infringes on my rights."

I'll tell you what. If y'all say, "You're right. I don't care about the dead as long as I have my rights..." I'll shut up. Don't play semantic games though.

reply to post by teslahowitzer


So, because I don't agree with you that a simple majority could abolish the 2nd Amendment, I am sitting comfortably by and, of course, a sleep while they take our guns. And in no way are you a bother.

Again I say, when this administration had EVERYTHING on their side to severely restrict the 2nd Amendment, they could do NOTHING. The POTUS did everything in his power save going door to door to get something, anything, done and he failed. Why? Because it can't be done. Americans may want to stop mass murders but we know that gun registration and other restrictions won't work because the people that commit these crimes wouldn't abide by these laws anyway.

The POTUS may not give a rats ass about Constitutional Rights, but there ain't a damn thing he can really do about it.

reply to post by Feltrick


Couldn't do it under the super majority from 2009-2011 because reelection was a concern. Obama doesn't have that problem now. Nor does Harry Reid because he had not planned on running again after his term is up. Pelosi and Feinstein will be reelected by their districts unless they eat a live baby on TV and even then they just might squeak by.

intrepid

I'll tell you what. If y'all say, "You're right. I don't care about the dead as long as I have my rights..." I'll shut up. Don't play semantic games though.

I have offered those solutions within this thread and none of them were semantic in scope at all.

Saying that nothing will 100% ever make your freedom safe, secure or harm free - nothing.

intrepid
OK. Let me get this straight. The gun lobby has said after EVERY mass shooting, "We need to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill." "Guns don't kill people. Mentally ill people with guns do." EVERY time. Go ahead. Do a search, you'll see I'm right on this. BUT when it's proposed that SOMETHING will be done about it NOW we've got, "Hey, that infringes on my rights."

I'll tell you what. If y'all say, "You're right. I don't care about the dead as long as I have my rights..." I'll shut up. Don't play semantic games though.

I'll say it. In fact I said as much on the previous page. I do not care how many "crazed lone gunman mass shootings" are allegedly perpetrated regardless of who the victims are. No crime is so heinous that I'll get on board with banning guns. Sure they're tragic, if real, but I refuse on principle to be left defenseless. Its just that simple.

reply to post by Ahabstar


A star because of the image of Pelosi and Feinstein eating babies. Yes, they would be reelected. The POTUS, Harry Reid nor the crazy sisters have enough pull or power to abolish any amendment. I don't see 38 states ratifying this...Oh sure, NY, CA and the Communist New England states might go for it, but the rest, no way.

Also, if the government tried it, there would be a revolt. If you think they could just put it down using the military, it would be tough as most of them would be part of the revolution, not to mention the veterans.

reply to post by intrepid


When gun ownership is redefined as a mental disease, and it will be if it hasn't been already, the difference/distinction won't matter.

TPTB will get our guns by law, by martial law, or by UN troops. They'll nuke a major city it that is what it takes.

Logarock

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.

Yes, you could easily and cost effectively add that to existing background checks. The problem is you will have to change the laws regarding how we deal with mentally challenged. Again, there is no national registry for this. This goes to an even larger problem in the medical industry. Almost none of the hospitals are transparent. You can't pry information out of them. They don't want to have to tell people how many mistakes they make and how many people they kill. I would be willing to bet it rivals gun deaths but you will never know. They refuse to provide this type of information hiding behind patient confidentiality.

So unless we are willing to address at the federal level how we deal with mentally challenged and agree to a label for them and put them in the database this could not work. Like I said, this is no easy issue and reality is it is best left to each state to deal with locally. This is happening anyway. Check me if I am wrong but I believe there are some states you have to register private gun sales already.

This one not going to be solved any time soon, luckily Obama won't be around to see anything happen. Least not while the Repubs own the Senate. Things could, could change next year. We will see.

The Bot

Ahabstar
reply to post by Feltrick

 

Couldn't do it under the super majority from 2009-2011 because reelection was a concern. Obama doesn't have that problem now. Nor does Harry Reid because he had not planned on running again after his term is up. Pelosi and Feinstein will be reelected by their districts unless they eat a live baby on TV and even then they just might squeak by.

Check me if I am wrong but I thought a change to the constitution has to be ratified. That won't happen.

the bot

p.s. let me take a moment to wish everyone a happy thanksgiving, i pray you have a blessed day. think of me when you are cutting turkey, i had to stay behind and take care of horses etc. so i am alone and eating tv dinner lol... also, around 11 a.m. central if you have time go here

cometison.gsfc.nasa.gov... for the first time ever they are going to tilt their camera's and we are going to get to watch the comet ison go around the sun, and or smash into it, whatever, lol, but it should be fantastic... first time we get to see a sundiver in this way.... have a good day all

reply to post by Ahabstar

As a side note regarding the 2nd. If you check Article 1, Congress is supposed to call forth, arm and regulate the militia by providing training and promotion within the ranks. Under the 2nd. The militia referred to is private law abiding citizens being able to take immediate need to protect against local insurrection, invasion or domestic enemies of the people. That is to say, that if a government body (or insurrection or invasion by a foreign force) were to try to suppress the rights of the people, the people have the legal right to remove it by force of arms and the right to arms cannot be infringed upon in order to perform that civic duty. Under the 2nd, the people of the US could remove the entire sitting government over the ACA if they chose to do so, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court, because the Federal government does not have the legal power to mandate the purchase of anything...including firearms, but especially insurance policies which are service contracts.

Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II, Section 2, clause 1

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

and the 2nd 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.

So where did you come up with the following?

The militia referred to is private law abiding citizens being able to take immediate need to protect against local insurrection, invasion or domestic enemies of the people. That is to say, that if a government body (or insurrection or invasion by a foreign force) were to try to suppress the rights of the people, the people have the legal right to remove it by force of arms and the right to arms cannot be infringed upon in order to perform that civic duty.

Article I, Section 8 contains the enumerated powers of Congress. Clauses 15 & 16 give the Congress the authority to call forth a militia and train them so that they can suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Article II, Section 2 details the powers of the President. The first line of the first clause makes him "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

Now for the 2nd. The first part is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" seems to be a clear statement that a militia, which was of some actual use 200 years ago, is necessary for security. Militias were almost immediately proven to be ineffective--Washington pointed out the deficiencies of officer training after the Whiskey Rebellion, militia forces were handed several terrible defeats during the war of 1812, notably at the Battle of Bladensburg which resulted in the British capturing & razing buildings in D.C., etc etc etc.

The 2nd part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is predicated on the need for the first. There have been throughout our nation's history, interpretations by people who have attempted to broaden the meaning of 2nd, but what has been legally significant are the SCOTUS rulings and opinions of the latter part of the 20th century through 2008 which is ironic given your phrase, "despite the ruling of the Supreme Court." Read the court's opinion and the dissenting opinion to District of Columbia er al. v. Heller, there's some valid points raised in both. It can be found here.

This is all a moot point because a) you're not going to be able to defend yourself against a tyrannical government's military with the weapons civilians have access to legally and b) there's absolutely nothing approaching popular support for any type of "ban on guns" anyway.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Restrictions are infringement any way you look at it. The 2nd is very very clear on this.

So, instead of pushing laws with votes, which have severe consequences, see Colorado, the Govt will push it through as policy.

It is a power grab any way you look at it.

reply to post by Spookybelle

You were saying what again????
www.thetruthaboutguns.com...