Who the hell do these people think they are to try to dictate terms to us?
Posted on 10/14/2017 10:46:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A simple, constitutional proposal that protects both Americans’ lives and liberty.
The 27 words of the Second Amendment don’t say anything about how many guns someone can own in America. Neither do the other 7,564 words in the Constitution. Yes, this is a facile point to make. A lot of things—including rights, responsibilities, and government powers we take for granted—aren’t itemized in the Constitution. While saying you can’t find something doesn’t necessarily mean anything, conservatives use this trick all the time. Consider marriage equality, a precept protected by the Constitution’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. That’s the case even though the Constitution doesn’t include the words, There shall be no discrimination by government in recognition of any marriage on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
This means a couple of things in the gun debate. First, the Constitution and its text are a starting point, not an end point, for determining what gun regulations federal, state, and local governments may pass. Second, though the Constitution’s open-ended provisions are rooted in the time of their drafting, the task of understanding them and applying them has been left to later generations. Federal courts have taken tentative, though momentous, steps in recent years to decide what the Second and 14th amendments mean in terms of gun laws. But in the wake of the slaughter in Las Vegas, some commentators appear to have lost their minds about just how far the courts have gone. No, we don’t have to repeal the Second Amendment to pass strong gun laws—Section III of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 Heller decision is all you have to read to figure that out....
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
FOADMF
Irrational laws make for bolder government. And a democratic government already has contempt for the people... history sure do rhyme.
I would make two observations:
1. Using this logic, one should only own one single knife and one single hammer in the house as well.
2. This comment in the full report suggests that only 3-percent of the population own 50-percent of the guns? I grew up in a rural county with an adult population today of roughly 75,000. If you were to draw a circle around the farm today, I’d say that virtually every single household has a minimum of two pistols, a shotgun, and a minimum of three rifles.
A lot of what the report misses are the gun collector-types. You can find literally thousands of guys who own dozens of weapons purely for collection-purposes. Some will happily show you their display room with forty historical weapons and talk for hours over the period from which they were used. The inability of the ‘experts’ to grasp this part of the story amazes me.
I can remember a person at our gun club saying that if you can prepare a list all the guns you own from memory, then you don’t own enough. I doubt any collector of firearms would be counted among those who had a deficient inventory.
Ditto! Let the POS put himself in an anaerobic environment!
“enumerated powers”
The Constitution doesn’t say how many words you get to have in your right to free speech either.
Maybe this turd should be limited to two.
Who the hell do these people think they are to try to dictate terms to us?
“The Constitution certainly doesn’t mandate that Americans be allowed to own an unlimited number of guns. In the Second Amendment, a gun enthusiast might latch onto the words “shall not be infringed” and (ironically) “militia,” and argue that any restriction on his ability to possess any gun he wants violates his constitutional rights, while also making it harder to wage war against the government if it becomes tyrannical. Neither of these arguments is persuasive.”
“Neither of these arguments is persuasive.”
Only in his mind.
Communists have been known to manipulate the meaning of words. We live with a form of government, a constitutional government, that protects our God given rights. Marxist socialism, communism, democracy, all take away individual rights.
So, it will be mandatory for everyone to have AT LEAST two guns? Interesting.
I guess they don’t understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed.”
When I worked as a civilian security policeman at an Air Guard base I had a co-worker who probably spent at least 30% of his paychecks on new guns and more ammo. I asked him once if he was going to outfit his whole neighborhood in case of civil war or emergency.
Here's one, then:
Pucker up, a-hole.
Each individual needs no less than five types of guns - yes, 5.
1. A long rifle - capable of accurately hitting beyond 800 yds.
2. A carbine - capable of accurately hitting within 250 yds.
3. A semi-auto pistol
4. A revolver
5. A shotgun
At least a case of ammo per each gun.
And then you need spares for each type.
That makes at least 5 guns, and at least 5,000 rnds ammo.
Creeping incrementalism - all in the highest of motivations, of course, as you will learn if you ask the people doing it - has resulted in the direct abrogation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The former clearly states that searches require a warrant, and now they do not; the latter that takings of private property on the part of the government must be "justly compensated", and they do not. The Supreme Court has signally failed in its trust to uphold these rights, which now are at the mercy of whatever corrupt deal the government wishes to make with their putative guardians. The Second Amendment has already been severely compromised, the First, under increasing attack by those who imagine that a little tyranny is acceptable so long as it's theirs. Just NO.
Heller has shown us that even an unmistakably clear decision toward individual rights on the part of the Supreme Court may be simply disregarded by those in power who don't like it. As it has been, and no serious observer of the recent re-affirmation of that decision can possibly conclude that it is immune from a similar airy disregard on the part of the illegitimate regulating authorities. They'll do as they please whatever the Supreme Court says; they are the masters, and their citizens the slaves. This is the direction the author intends to follow. Just No.
We’re seriously deficient then. My first wife made me sell my Winchester automatic shotgun and Marlin Model 60.
Or this,
A simple, constitutional proposal that protects both msm right to free speech and others from having to hear their crap.
"The words of the First Amendment doesn't say anything about how many times the msm can communicate in America."
"The Constitution certainly doesn’t mandate that the msm be allowed speak in an unlimited manner."
So...
Only two articles per week, per stupid rag.
Only two minutes of tv time per day, per program.
Only two internet posts per day, per msm website.
Yes, I think this a simple, constitutional proposal for the msm.
Better make your 2nd and final article a good one, Doug... (and that’s sarcasm, jackass.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.