The Founder's Intent
Posted on 07/16/2015 7:47:15 AM PDT by pabianice
...Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible... Then the NRA worked to weaken old rules barring the mentally ill from owning guns. In the past, because of concerns that an unbalanced person could relapse after treatment, the rules provided that anyone prohibited from having a gun for psychological reasons was banned forever. No more: Now a person committed to a mental hospital can, after getting out, petition a court for his guns. And by lobbying state legislatures, the NRA made sure psychiatric experts play a puny role in determining if a former mental patient should have a gun. Instead, in places like Idaho, state judges who are ill-equipped to make such a determination do it with no input from experts...
According to the NRA, every armed madman or criminal is a responsible, law-abiding good guy with a gun until the moment his first bullet splatters the walls with the brains and blood of innocent people.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Why is it hard to believe that members of the black panthers would be pro-gun?
The shooting at the Austin hotel seems to have nothing to do with open carry, other than the person doing the shooting was carrying the gun openly when he committed the crime.
He is just doing agitprop, there are so few examples of people openly carrying before committing crimes, that he has to make stuff up. Openly carrying a gun while committing murder or robbery is already illegal...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gunman-killed-police-swanky-texas-hotel-cops-article-1.2282374
The shooting in Austin occurred before 5 a.m. in the hotel lobby.
“Why is it hard to believe that members of the black panthers would be pro-gun?”
It is not hard to believe that they would want guns for themselves. There were many felons in the Black Panthers. David Horowitz, who knew the California group quite well, describes them as criminal organization, with a gloss of “revolution” to attract liberal support.
As an organization openly pushing for a socialist revolution, it is not hard to believe that they wished to push for more gun control for others.
It is hard to believe that they thought that brandishing guns at legislators would not result in more gun control.
You only need to look at the open carry movement today, and compare it with the pictures of the Black Panthers, to make a decision about who is actually defending their rights within the framework of the Constitution.
The Black Panthers worked to destroy the Constitutional system.
Well, that’s good German and your interpretation. It’s not proof that my interpretation of that guy’s nom de plume is wrong. Personally, I like mine better. But, hey, you can go start your own Internet rumor. I won’t dispute it.
The recent Open Carry Movement in Texas has been related to handguns.
Long guns in Texas have been legal for open carry for years and years, even if select law enforcement officials don’t know it or disagree with it. No permit has ever been required.
The hotel incident has nothing to do with the recent authorization of open carry of handguns by permit holders.
“The hotel incident has nothing to do with the recent authorization of open carry of handguns by permit holders.”
Absolutely correct, but the author of the posted article from Newsweek is attempting to use it to justify the banning of open carry.
1. Americans Don't Have the Right to Bear Just Any Arms – where is that specified in the founding documents?
If they can start picking and choosing which arms we are ‘allowed’ to have, you can wager that the pool of weaponry will be winnowed down to nothing soon enough.
2. .....to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible.. – where did they find the basis for that Strawman argument?
This goes back to the ‘easy access to guns’ talking point that supposedly at present there aren’t any gun laws so anything that is passed in the heat of the crisis de jour will be a good ‘first step’.
3. ...barring the mentally ill from owning guns. – Keep in mind that the national Socialist LEFT considers opposition to their base Marxist ideology as ‘mental illness’ (because Marxism works and is the ideal method of organizing society don’t ya know)
Bottom line - the national Socialist LEFT automatically thinks that Conservatives are ‘mentally ill’ and thus should be automatically barred from bearing arms.
A quick read seems to show them insinuating that everyone is a madman/mass murderer until proven otherwise. Oddly, I thought I had to be proven guilty, not prove myself innocent.
Now it is beginning to make sense, Democrats only favor certain rights for certain people, not all people. If you are mentally ill or a felon you should be denied the right to every own a firearm, but given the right to vote, hold political office and a host of other things.
I suppose that Democrats also have selective feelings about the right to free speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of religion. That is rights to only democrats not people they don't like.
It all makes sense and I can see why they want to make the NRA the villain, when the Democrats are the true villains.
They have a right to use nouns. If they want to use verbs, they need a permit registering the specific verbs they intend to use. Adjectives and adverbs each require a $200 modifier stamp.
I disagree. While in prison or on probation/parole, I'm okay with the denial of the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. Once an individual is no longer under the supervision of the criminal justice system, I would like to see all of that individual's rights restored. If it won't be safe to release a murderer after 20 years under that condition, then the murderer should be sentenced to a longer sentence. The notion that it's okay to release a murderer who is not safe with guns rests on a delusion that a violent criminal will obey gun laws.
Dinesh D’Souza comes to mind. Four years of “observation” after his release.
It would be the worst cake I ever made.
It would be the worst cake I ever made.
Socialists? Let me check...
Yep! You're right:
Newsweak/Vanity Fair writer Kurt Eichenwald:
This idiot needs to explain Letters of Marque, which are in the Constitution, and how they would apply to a populace without serious military weaponry.
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.
