Posted on 07/21/2018 8:34:01 AM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
See, there's the difference between a leftist scumbag and a conservative.
The conservative ins't interested in guns, so he doesn't buy them.
The leftist scumbag isn't interested in guns (or so he says), so he wants to ban them. All of them. And have government goons (armed with guns) take them all away.
But give me one reason for guns other than to kill
Don't need to. See, we have guns so we can turn live criminals into good criminals, live tyrants into good tyrants.
Choose your side, Bucko. Are you with the citizens, or with the criminals and tyrants?
“Look This is fine”
“But give me one reason for guns other than to kill”
“Wife treated three gunshot victims yesterday”
“Yes I know self defense and deterrents. Agreed.”
“Every criminal should be worried everywhere”
“I just don’t get excited about guns. That’s all”
You seem to contradict yourself a lot.
Do you have multiple personalities?
Close.
The Leftist scumbag says he’s not interested in guns but has a huge collection and/or armed bodyguards if they’re some kind of celebrity. The truth is they’re all about guns either hired or their own.
What they’re actually against is YOU having guns. Guns are only for them.
Good point. The leftists’ hypocrisy is much more evident in your formulation than in mine.
"Under state law, guns are not allowed to be carried by those attending public rallies, demonstrations or protests."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
From related threads …
Note that the Founding States had decided that the states did not have to respect the rights that the states amended the Constitution to expressly protect in the Bill of Rights. The Founding States obligated only the feds to respect constitutionally enumerated rights.
So hypothetically speaking, the early states could make gun-control laws like California now has.
H O W E V E R …
When the states later ratified the post-Civil War 14th Amendment (14A), that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances, the states obligated themselves to also respect the rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect, including the 2nd Amendment (2A).
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had included 2A when he read the first eight amendments to the Constitution as examples of enumerated rights that 14A applied to the states.
John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 2nd Amendment about in middle of 2nd column.)
Also, consider that after 14A was ratified the Supreme Court clarified in Minor v. Happersett that while 14A didn't add new rights to the Constitution, it gave Congress limited power to strengthen only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect, including 2A.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Going back to the congressional record, it also shows that Bingham had clarified not only that the states had never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to make peacetime punitive civil laws, but that 14A had given Congress limited power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections. This includes 2A protections.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphasis added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
What all this is saying is the following. If parents were making sure that their children where being taught the Constitution as constitutional lawmakers had intended for it to be understood, then most citizens would know that it is perfectly constitutional for ordinary citizens to work with their federal lawmakers to make punitive laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated rights, the 2nd Amendment in this example about California.
But there's still a big problem …
Consider that all roads of corruption in the federal and state governments lead to the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress imo.
In other words, we are still stuck with a corrupt, uniparty Congress left over from the lawless Obama Administration that has a track record for wrongly remaining silent when state actors abridge constitutionally enumerated rights like low-information California state lawmakers are doing with gun-control laws imo.
In fact, career federal lawmakers are now wrongly using the promise of unconstitutional federal gun control laws to buy votes from misguided, low-information voters imo, such voters undoubtedly clueless that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the corrupt feds the power to make such laws imo.
The remedy for Constitution-ignoring federal and state governments …
Patriots need to finish the job that they started when they elected Trump president.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, candidates who will be willing to make laws to punish state actors who couldn't care less about our enumerated protections.
Patriots then need to pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day so they can start supporting Trump in weeding the constitutionally enumerated rights abusers out of the system.
And until the states wise up and repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of the outcome of Alabama's and Pennsylvania's special elections, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for the following concerns.
Intel Chair: FBI, DOJ Obstructing Trump Probe in Hope of Dem Takeover in Congress
Keep Pelosi from becoming Speaker again.
Obama: Pelosi will be speaker again after November midterms
Keep Democrats from impeaching Trump.
Democratic Rep. Al Green says he will force House impeachment vote
Young, misguided, newly registered pro-gun control voters who are likely clueless about the fed's constitutionally limited powers.
Possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.
Interference from people like Soros.
“Except in NC, people cannot bring guns to rallies.”
If 500,000 showed up bearing arms, enforcement would begin ... where?
What would they do; declare it an illegal assembly and call to disband? And when nobody moves...and the speaker keeps on speaking and the crowd keeps on clapping and cheering and the bullhorns get ignored...?
“Under state law, guns are not allowed to be carried by those attending public rallies, demonstrations or protests.”
Thank Governor Reagan for that.
L
Would be a good experiment to try.....
Thanks for the treatise.
Lots of trolls been coming out of the woodwork lately.
Seems to be true.....
I would be happy if the voters drag their sorry asses to the polling place.
He walked away from the Dem a year ago...and he couldn't vote Obama in 2012...he divided the nation.
Great to know that this person walked away from the Dems already......maybe he can influence others to do the same.
[But give me one reason for guns other than to kill
Wife treated three gunshot victims yesterday
Yes I know self defense and deterrents. Agreed
Every criminal should be worried everywhere
I just don’t get excited about guns. That’s all]
Think logically. You’re letting yourself get caught up in the emotionalism about the issue.
You’ve already given yourself two reasons for gun ownership.
And that’s fine for you. Its when people go overboard and want to curtail everybody else’s rights regarding the issue.
Guns are used in the multiple shooting sports disciplines in a safe and responsible manner for hundreds of years.
Guns are used as a deterrent to crime in thousands of incidents each year without a shot being fired.
Guns SAVE lives in multiple incidents every year.
Try not to conflate criminal use of guns with all gun ownership in general.
What was the nature of the gunshot injuries your wife was involved with treating?
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.