Taking the guns early

Trump is wanting to do something unconstitutional, but a law already exists in California that already allows police to seize weapons without concrete evidence, just a gut feeling or bad feelings toward conservative uncle Al is enough.

The sad thing is local law enforcement had plenty of reason to have already legally stopped Nikolas Cruz and to have taken his weapons from him. It was another case where just enforcing existing laws would have prevented a tragedy and proves that another unenforced law won't make us safer.

Nikolas Cruz threatened classmates, posted photos of himself holding guns, made violent statements online and was repeatedly described to authorities as a potential “school shooter.”

His troubling behavior gave law enforcement plenty of opportunities to investigate and arrest him — and even take away his guns — long before he shot up Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland last week, according to interviews with former South Florida prosecutors and legal experts.

In recent years, South Florida police detectives have arrested a slew of young men in unrelated cases who exhibited similar, troubling behavior on a variety of charges. Cops took them seriously.

It never happened with Cruz.

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...rticle201887629.html

If holding a loaded gun to someones head isn't enough to get a person into a jail cell or committed to a mental institution now, what makes anyone believe that public officials will enforce the new laws after the past shooting becomes old news?

Second 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.”

If you understand English, you understand this...all of it. Now bust a gut sayin' "But, but, but..."

So many have been fed NRA pap that they can't see a word of it.

I see it,, I have the right to carry a gun. To protect my family, neighbors and my community.  To protect our freedom from those who want to take it.  I make decisions based on facts, thinking not emotions.  Blame the gun, then blame the phone when texting causes a death? The gun is symptom not a cause. Take the symptom away and the cause is still there.

Challenge is who decides who shouldn't have a gun.  There are elected officials breaking the law, harboring illegals. There are elected officials slanting the truth, telling exaggerated stories. There is media giving a heavy opinionated view, stirring emotions not facts.

what percentage does this gun or person represent?  Our media likes to take less than 1% and make it seem like 80%.  Then the sheep follow the pied piper and screams.  They focus on one person. If be evil to support their cause or good to support their cause.  

Recratican posted:

Uh, no. Unless you're in the National Guard. That's what "well regulated militias" changed their name to in 1903. 

Nope :

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

1130

Challenge is who decides who shouldn't have a gun.  There are elected officials breaking the law, harboring illegals. There are elected officials slanting the truth, telling exaggerated stories. There is media giving a heavy opinionated view, stirring emotions not facts.

---------------------------

STANKY

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

---------------

The above, two best starting/thinking points.

 

Recratican posted:

Okay, so the term militia may still be used. I don't know any states who call theirs a militia. I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

I might also note that the Second Amendment is a two part statement. The first part is a reason for people owning their own arms; that an armed populace can defend the state. The other part is a simple declarative statement that the goobermint won't mess with people's individual right to own weapons.

I might note that the Second Amendment came from the concept of the natural right to self defense. I also would point out that natural rights meant to the writers of the Constitution that the right came from God or nature, not the goobermint.

You might have a go at the word "regulated", but that had a different meaning in the late 18th Century than what you would think now:

 

According to Wikipedia, the militias were always in the hands of the state:


The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time, complicating its meaning.[1]

During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were eligible for the militia.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the US Constitution was ratifiedThe Federalist Papers detailed the founders' vision of the militia.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to regulate this national military force,[6] leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[7][8]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

  • Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
  • Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]
Recratican posted:

According to Wikipedia, the militias were always in the hands of the state:


The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time, complicating its meaning.[1]

During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were eligible for the militia.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the US Constitution was ratifiedThe Federalist Papers detailed the founders' vision of the militia.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to regulate this national military force,[6] leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[7][8]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

  • Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
  • Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]

And the states also cannot infringe upon the right of the people from owning or properly carrying weapons either. Actually during the time when the Constitution was written that "well regulated " part meant that when people met together at town squares to march around town that someone was in charge and the volunteers were a well functioning disciplined defense force. "Well regulated" didn't mean federal or state government or agencies creating laws and rules to forbid or restrict gun ownership of good citizens in the late 18th Century.

No one wants to take guns used in self defense. But no one can say one needs a military grade weapon for self defense of the home. If we used the ages and well regulated standard, few mass murderers would have been able to buy guns at all. Many on this forum couldn't purchase a gun.

There is no "well regulated" standard and you aren't even using the definition that the founders meant. Again, the first part of the Second Amendment gives a reason why the people should have weapons without government intrusions and the folks who wrote the Constitution gave many other reasons in their writings with the biggest reason being that the people should have the means to revolt if the federal government went the way of Europe:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

 

 
Again, the inclusion of the Second Amendment among the other rights was just an enumeration of what were considered natural rights which are considered "unalienable rights". I might also note that the founders didn't enumerate all those rights, hence the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
 

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights, based on Natural Law, are "God-given." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that are subject to government restriction or license are called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Naio posted:

Of the people, by the people, for the people.  If we can't trust the government...we need to figure out how to work together.

Considering the failures of local, state, and federal government to enforce existing laws such as with the Florida school shooter; I can only trust that the government of the commissars, by the inept, and for the crony capitalists will continue to fail the people.

This isn't rocket science. If the founders hadn't meant "well regulated," they wouldn't have said it, now would they? 

You're maintaining that owning a gun is a liberty to which the founders referred. How about other liberties? Child sex? Revenge killings? It's a slippery slope.

Now while we know this nation isn't Christian as such, Christians are commanded to keep all laws unless they cause sin in itself. Not being able to purchase a bazooka gun is not a sin, so we should have no problem with it. 

The government already regulates guns. Now it's just a question of how much.

Recratican posted:

This isn't rocket science. If the founders hadn't meant "well regulated," they wouldn't have said it, now would they? 

You're maintaining that owning a gun is a liberty to which the founders referred. How about other liberties? Child sex? Revenge killings? It's a slippery slope.

Now while we know this nation isn't Christian as such, Christians are commanded to keep all laws unless they cause sin in itself. Not being able to purchase a bazooka gun is not a sin, so we should have no problem with it. 

The government already regulates guns. Now it's just a question of how much.

Apparently the Supreme Court of the United States SOCTUS does not agree with you.  It has been affirmed time and time from SCOTUS that Americans have the Constitutional right to have guns!

 

 

HIFLYER2 posted:
Recratican posted:

This isn't rocket science. If the founders hadn't meant "well regulated," they wouldn't have said it, now would they? 

You're maintaining that owning a gun is a liberty to which the founders referred. How about other liberties? Child sex? Revenge killings? It's a slippery slope.

Now while we know this nation isn't Christian as such, Christians are commanded to keep all laws unless they cause sin in itself. Not being able to purchase a bazooka gun is not a sin, so we should have no problem with it. 

The government already regulates guns. Now it's just a question of how much.

Apparently the Supreme Court of the United States SOCTUS does not agree with you.  It has been affirmed time and time from SCOTUS that Americans have the Constitutional right to have guns!

 

 

And they have incorporated the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth as well which means the state and local governments cant infringe on the right of good citizens to own firearms. I might note that one of the major reasons for the passage of the 14th Amendment was because the freed slaves were barred from owning weapons to fight back against the sore losers in the South.

In 1868, Republican Representative Thaddeus Stevens, who was directly involved in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was not ambiguous about whether the right to keep and bear arms applied to the states. 
 
“Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty,” Stevens said. “The Fourteenth Amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.”

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a...ntent-14th-amendment

Recratican posted:

This isn't rocket science. If the founders hadn't meant "well regulated," they wouldn't have said it, now would they? 

You're maintaining that owning a gun is a liberty to which the founders referred. How about other liberties? Child sex? Revenge killings? It's a slippery slope.

Now while we know this nation isn't Christian as such, Christians are commanded to keep all laws unless they cause sin in itself. Not being able to purchase a bazooka gun is not a sin, so we should have no problem with it. 

The government already regulates guns. Now it's just a question of how much.

Are you a Russian provocateur trying to sow discord? I know that the education system has failed our children, but really, where do you get your talking points!

HIFLYER2 posted:
Recratican posted:

This isn't rocket science. If the founders hadn't meant "well regulated," they wouldn't have said it, now would they? 

You're maintaining that owning a gun is a liberty to which the founders referred. How about other liberties? Child sex? Revenge killings? It's a slippery slope.

Now while we know this nation isn't Christian as such, Christians are commanded to keep all laws unless they cause sin in itself. Not being able to purchase a bazooka gun is not a sin, so we should have no problem with it. 

The government already regulates guns. Now it's just a question of how much.

Apparently the Supreme Court of the United States SOCTUS does not agree with you.  It has been affirmed time and time from SCOTUS that Americans have the Constitutional right to have guns!

 

 

Apparently you didn't read my earlier comment. I said no one (or very few) wants to take away all guns from everyone...least of all I. 

I'm sure you know that gun ownership is already controlled. There are some guns out there no one can buy (unregistered machine guns, and yes I've seen those who want to change that). It's simply a matter of how much control. Some guns were once "banned" under the Brady Bill and then made legal again. The pendulum can sway either way and now it's swaying back toward more gun control. In thirty years, what you seem to think is infringement will be the norm.

PS. The SCOTUS has been known to sway as well as pubic opinion. Think civil rights for blacks.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×