Jump to content

Is there a Constitutional right to


TexasTiger

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

By "God-given right to us all to bear arms," what do you mean or intend to indicate about the right in connection with its regulation?

     The 2A should not be infringed upon. It isn't a Right granted by the Constitution. It is acknowledged and confirmed by the Constitution. The fact that we have already let the US Govt. infringe on it as much as we have would have the founding fathers spinning in their graves. They knew what a Govt. is capable of. Evil exist in the world. Always will. I understand that people are in an uproar with the Mass shootings, but further restricting Americans from access to firearms or certain types of firearms is not going to make a difference with evil. It will only limit our ability to defend ourselves. The even bigger issue here is what everybody seems to miss, that the government uses every one of these tragedies for political gain. They exploit it to no end for their political agenda. Who really benefits from anti-gun laws? If you really think about it there are only 2 correct answers. The criminals, and the US GOVT! Technically, one could say the latter is part of the former. As we are being pushed into a socialist society the government is going to do all they can to play on people's fear to take away guns. Just look at history. Even recent history. Austrailia. The UK. Yea they don't have as many Mass murders with firearms but they have a lot more with other weapons and avenues. 

      Another thing I often think about in regards to these mass shootings is that I sometimes wonder if we aren't lucky that the shooter chose the weapon they did ( AR-15 or any gun for tht matter). What if they had chose a bomb? The OKC Bomber killed what...87 people with Manure? Another guy in Europe killed 80 plus with his truck on a crowded street. I mean...at least if it is a firearm we know the weapon and can go right to it to stop them. These always happen in gun free zones. We don't need less guns we need more. 

     All in all, I think the biggest thing is as long as we have access to adequate weapons we can fend off any tyrannical govt. I feel like we should have access to every thing the US military has access to personally. That's the way it was when it was written. Citizens could have cannons. There was actually a big deal about this and it was confirmed that citizens could own cannons to fend off pirates.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My follow-up question was genuine. I’ll assume that your response is as well (considering we are in the sacred forum), so can you please expound a bit?

They ignore “or to the people.” The people have to prove a right is “fundamental” to thwart an otherwise all-powerful state police power according to the Court. This requires tortured reasoning to conclude the state can’t arrest a married couple for using contraception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2019 at 8:28 PM, TexasTiger said:

They ignore “or to the people.” The people have to prove a right is “fundamental” to thwart an otherwise all-powerful state police power according to the Court. This requires tortured reasoning to conclude the state can’t arrest a married couple for using contraception.

Interesting. Which cases come to mind, if any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2019 at 12:57 PM, DKW 86 said:

In a essentially a non-handgun city like Chicago

This has not been true for a long time.

Quote

Remember that old requirement that gun owners in Chicago register their firearms with the city and obtain a permit? Well, that's gone too.

And thanks to the Illinois General Assembly, which was pressured by the federal courts to pass a concealed carry law in 2013, people can walk the streets of Chicago with a gun attached to their waist and another strapped to their ankle.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

You are buying the old switcheroo here. "If everyone else would do like Chicago, all the gun violence would go away." Well good luck with that. Not every other jurisdiction is going to agree with Chicago, even those in Upstate Illinois. I have heard this ad nauseum, that the surrounding areas of Chicago are the issue. Well DUR! They are free entities that can and do differently than Chicago proper. Even saying all that, the guns they sell are legal etc. Why restrict the rights of the Chicago Citizen to less than what his neighbors have? 

 

Quote

 

We don't make excuses for our ghastly homicide numbers in Chicago. With 762 people killed last year, no one has to remind us that we have a serious gun problem. We own it. (Actually, I would say this article says that you dont own it. You spend the entire article blaming every other entity in sight but yourselves.) And we have to do something about it. (What are you going to do? Please tell us...)

But we are tired of Donald Trump and pro-gun advocates using our city to promote their political agenda. (And for the rest of the article never explains WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO OTHER THAN BITCH AND MOAN.)

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dragged Chicago into the fray again on Monday when responding to a reporter's question about gun policy in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

"One of the things that we don't want to do is try to create laws that won't stop these types of things from happening," Sanders said at a news conference. "I think if you look to Chicago where you had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes, they have the strictest gun laws in the country and that certainly hasn't helped there."

Sanders should listen to U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., who argues that the problem is Chicago being surrounded by red states that have completely surrendered to the pro-gun lobby.

Rep. Kelly: Trump press secretary wrong about Chicago gun laws

With no gun stores in Chicago and no background check loopholes for private sales, one thing is clear. The guns being used to kill people on the streets aren't originating in Chicago. They're coming from someplace else. ( I would argue that that is as obvious as the nose on your face. Guns on the streets of Chicago are indeed being sold and exchanged on the streets of Chicago, but several sales ago likely did come from somewhere else...in legal sales in other jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that dont have Chicago's crime problems nor Chicago's death rates. Funny how the shootings escalate in Chicago and not everywhere else. HHHHHmmmmm....)

When politicians and others repeat that ridiculous statement about Chicago's gun laws, it shows how out of touch they are with the problems urban areas face when it comes to gun violence.

When it comes to gun laws, big cities are only as strong as the states that border them. And in Chicago's case, that's Indiana. Thanks to Vice President Mike Pence, the former governor, Indiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation

While Illinois has gone to great lengths to see that background checks are done for all gun purchases, Indiana has done the opposite. To buy a weapon in Illinois, the owner must have a valid firearms owner's identification card, issued by the Illinois State Police

With no permit or license required to purchase a gun in Indiana, it is incredibly easy for a trafficker to drive across the state line, obtain a gun and use it to commit a homicide on the streets of Chicago. DUR!

Those with felony convictions commonly use straw purchases, in which they enlist someone with a clean record to purchase multiple guns and bring them into the city.

Law enforcement officials say 60 percent of the guns confiscated on the streets of Chicago come from Indiana, Wisconsin and Mississippi. The other 40 percent come from suburban Cook County and nearby suburbs. DUR!

 

 

Congratulations,. you finally found out there are other people with other views, views equal to and just as valid as yours. The Chicago Gun Laws were built in a vacuum and the supporters bemoan that the vacuum they dreamed up doesnt exist. Sucks to be them. Reality is indeed reality. Deal with it or have 100s more dead. NY has other entities that sell guns around them? Whats the difference? Why do they succeed and not Chicago? This article answers only PART of the issues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2019 at 1:39 PM, Gowebb11 said:

In this ongoing gun debate, the least used phrase from the second amendment is “well-regulated”. The individual has the right to bear arms, and the government retains the right to regulate them. Neither side seems interested in budging. 

So true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we address the root cause(s) of gun violence no law will stop it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Until we address the root cause(s) of gun violence no law will stop it. 

The proliferation of guns in our culture - particularly military weapons - is one of the causes.  The data shows that.

The biggest cultural problem is this ridiculous mythical belief the citizenry needs these weapons to protect us from a "tyrannical" government. 

Our protection comes from the rule of law.  Lose that, and all the guns in the world won't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

The proliferation of guns in our culture - particularly military weapons - is one of the causes.  The data shows that.

The biggest cultural problem is this ridiculous mythical belief the citizenry needs these weapons to protect us from a "tyrannical" government. 

Our protection comes from the rule of law.  Lose that, and all the guns in the world won't help.

I am just curious....you don't think it is possible for a Government to overstep their bounds on their citizens? It has literally happened throughout all of history. Not that long ago. It's what happens with Government. They take and take and take until finally the people either stand up to it or they become sheeple....Are you seriously that naive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tigerpro2a said:

I am just curious....you don't think it is possible for a Government to overstep their bounds on their citizens? It has literally happened throughout all of history. Not that long ago. It's what happens with Government. They take and take and take until finally the people either stand up to it or they become sheeple....Are you seriously that naive?

So you think random folks need the same firepower as a standing army, just in case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

So you think random folks need the same firepower as a standing army, just in case?

I absolutely do. That is the one thing that has kept America unique. Americans have always had guns and weapons. This didn't become a problem until recently...What changed? We don't have a gun problem...We have a society problem. Taking guns away, or taking certain types of guns away because they look scary, or taking away STANDARD capacity magazines, or taking away HP bullets, or taking away Body armor is not going to solve the problem. It isn't about gun control anyway, it is about people control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tigerpro2a said:

I absolutely do. That is the one thing that has kept America unique. Americans have always had guns and weapons. This didn't become a problem until recently...What changed? We don't have a gun problem...We have a society problem. Taking guns away, or taking certain types of guns away because they look scary, or taking away STANDARD capacity magazines, or taking away HP bullets, or taking away Body armor is not going to solve the problem. It isn't about gun control anyway, it is about people control. 

We’ve never had this kind of firepower in the past, that’s one huge change. Folks had pistols, hunting rifles and shot guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tigerpro2a said:

I absolutely do. That is the one thing that has kept America unique. Americans have always had guns and weapons. This didn't become a problem until recently...What changed? We don't have a gun problem...We have a society problem. Taking guns away, or taking certain types of guns away because they look scary, or taking away STANDARD capacity magazines, or taking away HP bullets, or taking away Body armor is not going to solve the problem. It isn't about gun control anyway, it is about people control. 

 

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

We’ve never had this kind of firepower in the past, that’s one huge change. Folks had pistols, hunting rifles and shot guns.

AAANNNDDD...we all had guns at the local high school a few decades ago. Guess what? No one shot anybody. No mass shootings, no mass homicides, no mass murders. Something changed alright and it wasnt the guns. It was the culture. We have a cultural problem, not a gun problem. You can treat all the symptoms you want to, but IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, YOU WOULD ADDRESS THE CULTURAL ISSUES. 

Image result for samuel l jackson on guns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

AAANNNDDD...we all had guns at the local high school a few decades ago. Guess what? No one shot anybody. No mass shootings, no mass homicides, no mass murders. Something changed alright and it wasnt the guns. It was the culture. We have a cultural problem, not a gun problem. You can treat all the symptoms you want to, but IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, YOU WOULD ADDRESS THE SULTURAL ISSUES. 

Image result for samuel l jackson on guns

It’s not JUST guns. But you take what’s wrong with society and ADD that to the capacity to take dozens out in seconds, that’s just a dumb thing to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s not JUST guns. But you take what’s wrong with society and ADD that to the capacity to take dozens out in seconds, that’s just a dumb thing to do. 

Ok so we take away guns....then what? You don't think people are smart enough to figure out a way to kill dozens. OKC bomber?  What about the guy in France that killed over 70 people with his truck alone? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tigerpro2a said:

Ok so we take away guns....then what? You don't think people are smart enough to figure out a way to kill dozens. OKC bomber?  What about the guy in France that killed over 70 people with his truck alone? 

I’ve never advocated taking away guns. 40 years ago folks had pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns. That seemed to work fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s not JUST guns. But you take what’s wrong with society and ADD that to the capacity to take dozens out in seconds, that’s just a dumb thing to do. 

Completely Wrong. As was Stated in homeys article posted in another thread. Rifles are used in only 4% of the shootings and cause <2% of the deaths. So, you see, it has almost nothing to do with Assault Weapons, like AR 15s etc. It is by far and away a handgun issue and those are barely being metioned in all this. And handguns are not high count magazine issues nor automatic firing. The face of gun crimes is comepletely different from the actual-reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Completely Wrong. As was Stated in homeys article posted in another thread. Rifles are used in only 4% of the shootings and cause <2% of the deaths. So, you see, it has almost nothing to do with Assault Weapons, like AR 15s etc. It is by far and away a handgun issue and those are barely being metioned in all this. And handguns are not high count magazine issues nor automatic firing. The face of gun crimes is comepletely different from the actual-reality.

We’re talking about different things. There’s gun crime in general and there’s mass shootings. The latter makes up a comparatively small percentage of victims but has had a very different impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

We’re talking about different things. There’s gun crime in general and there’s mass shootings. The latter makes up a comparatively small percentage of victims but has had a very different impact.

True. But my point was that yes, it indeed does make up a small percentage of crimes yet we dwell incessantly on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

True. But my point was that yes, it indeed does make up a small percentage of crimes yet we dwell incessantly on it.

But there’s a reason we do. Mass murder is carried out in places that have long been considered relatively safe — folks now are fearful of shopping, dancing, watching movies, attending concerts and even going to school. Robberies, drug violence and crimes of passion have long been with us, but there was once believed to be safety in open public spaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Do we write new laws to go after that small of a stat? If we are going after that stat, then let’s target social media more and free local cops to act freer on the info they have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 Do we write new laws to go after that small of a stat? If we are going after that stat, then let’s target social media more and free local cops to act freer on the info they have. 

Depends on how you measure stats, but why not address a clear problem of public concern?

DD7096BA-70C2-4DB4-886E-C93FAACD8745.png

Huge spike since the assault weapons ban expired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Depends on how you measure stats, but why not address a clear problem of public concern?

DD7096BA-70C2-4DB4-886E-C93FAACD8745.png

Huge spike since the assault weapons ban expired.

There has been an open conceptual definition in how you define "Mass Shooting." ANY FIREARM used in a situation with 4 or more potential victims is NOW a Mass Shooting. Potentially, a bank robbery can now fit the definition of a Mass Shooting because there are more then 4 people in the bank. Bottom line, they changed the definition of a Mass Shooting so they could claim more of them. You know, the same way they slip Suicides into the "Gun Death" Numbers so thay can fudge those higher too. My next post was going to show how some articles slipped that one under the rug and mine did not. 

So we are averaging around 300-330 MS per year, all but one MS per day...Those Mass Shooting account for <2% of the Murders by Gun in the US. 
(14000/100)x2=280 Deaths.   280/330= .85 Deaths per Action. We are now in the weeds...Their average has now fallen to less than 1 death per action. .

But what did the slight-of-hand do? Raised the total numbers of Mass Shooting by a landslide and By including the suicide numbers, Raised the total number of "Gun Deaths" close to a factor of two and a half. 

The Shooting in Elkmont where a 14YO kid killed his parents and siblings can be added now can be added to Mass Shooting Numbers, by definition.
Was it in a public place? No
Did it involve random victims? No
Did it involve an Assault Rifle? No. He used a 9MM handgun. 

The deaths will still count against the total number of deaths EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CORROLARY TO AN ASSAULT WEAPON. 
So comparing the total number of deaths and Assault Weapons Ban is really really weak. I just demonstrated that some numbers bear no corollary. 

Lets take another look:

Quote

 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-01/mass-shooting-data-odessa-midland-increase

If you look at mass shootings over time, two things are alarmingly clear: The attacks are becoming far more frequent, and they are getting deadlier.

We’ve studied every public mass shooting since 1966 for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Our research spans more than 50 years, yet 20% of the 164 cases in our database occurred in the last five years. More than half of the shootings have occurred since 2000 and 33% since 2010. The deadliest years yet were 2017 and 2018, and this year is shaping up to rival them, with at least 60 killed in mass shootings, 38 of them in the last five weeks.

The death count per shooting is also rising dramatically. Sixteen of the 20 most deadly mass shootings in modern history occurred in the last 20 years, eight of them in the last five years, including the 2017 Las Vegas shooting that claimed an unprecedented 58 lives.

For decades, the toll of mass shootings has risen steadily. During the 1970s, mass shootings claimed an average of 5.7 lives per year. In the 1980s, the average rose to 14. In the 1990s it reached 21; in the 2000s, 23.5. This decade has seen a far sharper rise. Today, the average is 51 deaths per year.

 

Wait: the LA Times researched this and they found:

Quote

studied every public mass shooting since 1966...

Our research spans more than 50 years, yet 20% of the 164 cases in our database occurred in the last five years.

We are now talking about 330/Year? The LAT says in their exhaustive research they see a new high of only 33 Shootings/Last 5 Years, or 6-7 per year. 

The last article said that there were 280 Deaths/year or so. The LAT says in their exhaustive research they see a new high of only 51 Deaths/Year. 

Every single death is very very bad. We should take actions to blunt this or stop this. All I am saying is that there is far more to this than legislating background checks etc. We need a comprehensive strategy. One that addresses cultural issues, criminal issues, and licensing issues. Lets address all those issues too, not just who should be able to purchase a weapon some dont understand nor like. 

I really think that there are a lot of politicians in the US determined to take away citizens rights and dont really care about truly dealing with getting guns off the streets. The #1 Victim of gun assaults every year in the US is Black Malesin inner cities, not white kids at Sandy Hook living in the suburbs. The real reason we are talking about the Black Males here is no one really cares. . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2019 at 6:23 AM, DKW 86 said:

You are buying the old switcheroo here. "If everyone else would do like Chicago, all the gun violence would go away." Well good luck with that. Not every other jurisdiction is going to agree with Chicago, even those in Upstate Illinois. I have heard this ad nauseum, that the surrounding areas of Chicago are the issue. Well DUR! They are free entities that can and do differently than Chicago proper. Even saying all that, the guns they sell are legal etc. Why restrict the rights of the Chicago Citizen to less than what his neighbors have? 

 

 

Congratulations,. you finally found out there are other people with other views, views equal to and just as valid as yours. The Chicago Gun Laws were built in a vacuum and the supporters bemoan that the vacuum they dreamed up doesnt exist. Sucks to be them. Reality is indeed reality. Deal with it or have 100s more dead. NY has other entities that sell guns around them? Whats the difference? Why do they succeed and not Chicago? This article answers only PART of the issues.  

Not buying a switcheroo. Just pointing out that the "toughest gun laws" argument with Chicago's laws is now a false statement.

You can't call Chicago a hand gun free city when you've been able to carry a hand gun for years now. Yet people still cling to that past and use false statements about it for their own purpose.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...