Posted on 06/11/2024 3:58:14 PM PDT by impimp
Fault lies with the woman and not Hunter.
There was no law against it before 1968.
No conundrum…drug users and abusers should have the right to bear arms, just as they should have the right to vote.
And your understanding of the second amendment is faulty…you don’t have to be a member of a well regulated militia to enjoy the right to bear arms. The first part of the second amendment is nothing more than superfluous wording…the actual crux of it is the second part about not infringing. Also the founders wanted people to have the right to bear arms so that they could keep the government scared of the people, not so that the government could organize gun owners to do their bidding.
Yes, you can yell fire in a theatre, but, you have to pay the penalty, for that action alone and/or if anyone gets hurt. However, you do not lose the 1st Amendment right, to continue to say fire or for that matter, speak at all, because of that.
Yes.
Or to put it another way; I don’t want the FedGov, that has a vested interest in making sure they can put limits on any force multiplier the general population might bring to bear in response to the governments increasingly criminal actions, to continue to use an unConstitutional power to arbitrarily create “prohibited classes” of people.
But sure... “crackheads with guns” since that is apparently the limit on most people’s understanding of this issue.
Agreed. The entirety of 922 should be stricken from USC Title 18 and the BATFE disbanded with extreme prejudice.
If the BATFE is in charge of processing those 4473’s... And are no longer under the IRS, but are now under the DoJ... Is it STILL a tax document? Or is it a violation of the “self-incrimination” clause of the 5th A?
You DO know that the BATFE is no longer a taxing agency... Right?
Name the law requiring the specific disposal of firearms... Take your time, we’ll wait.
This hullaballoo over the 4473 is a COMPLETE distraction from the drug use, under-age prostitutes, and shady money laundering/influence peddling Hunter was doing.
It provides COMPLETE cover in the eyes of the somnambulant public for all of his other and very real crimes.
Responsibilty and accountability are good and necessary citizenship.
But with the Second Amendment we might have bad actors that care about, can't understand, or even want the consequences, e.g., kill someone or as many people as possible. Granted that's a very very small fraction of the citizenry, but how do we address? This is where we get into the need for some sort of red flag law if we are going to the full 'shall not be infringed', to deal with the bad actors. It is not good enough to address after-the-fact or dismiss the damaged caused as acceptable collateral damage.
Do not create the slippery slope. Once you accept the premise of what someone “might” do... You’ve given them all the rope they need to hang us all.
There will ALWAYS be bad actors. This is one reason why the end goal of the 2A was that “every man be armed” because YOU are supposed to be your own first line of defense against these random evil people and nut cases.
You should not have to wait for someone else, or indeed even EXPECT someone else, to come along and save you.
It’s definitely one of those slippery slopes.
It’s a bit academic, to be honest. The entire system is an instance of arbitrary exercise of government power, which no Democrat, progressive, or other authoritarian, would ever give up once they’ve acquired it. That may be a bit pessimistic, though, in view of how much progress would be made if the NFA were declared unconstitutional, which is well within the range of attainability. That certainly isn’t a complete solution but it’s a start.
You are not going to fully control human behavior. And no amount of laws are going to change that fact. Unfortunately, people are going to do bad things, no matter the laws. For example I could be fine today and tomorrow, I could stub my toe and go ballistic and use my weapons to harm people. As I said, human nature.
A couple of ways to be proactive and mitigate/prevent the aftermath of shootings and crime, is if we as law abiding citizens were able to carry, without restrictions, in most, if not all places. This would put criminals on notice, that, they will receive resistance and push-back, if they try to commit a crime(Think police stations, how many criminals go there to commit a crime, with armed officers?). Second we need politicians, that will put and keep criminals/mentally ill in prison/hospitals, instead of releasing them.
I disagree on Red Flag laws. They are the anti-thesis of Shall Not Be Infringed. It allows anyone, including Gov't, for any reason to say someone is, this or that, and they can, without any proof, take somebody's weapons. No due process, no proof. Then that person has to fight to get their weapons and 2nd Amendment rights restored.
I totally agree all gun laws are unconstitutional.
Everyone, I mean EVERY ONE, has the God Given right to self defense.
If someone is a danger to society, they need to be locked away until they are not.
If someone is mentally incapacitated, then they require a guardian to make decisions for them.
Yes. He is guilty of far more than a 4473 infraction
I’m of the opinion that lying on the form should remain an offense, but a prohibition against possession outright is uncool.
Especially for pot users, who are FARRRR more likely to kill your bag of Doritos than a person.
And I haven’t puffed in more than two decades.
Agree. No love lost for biden, but I but “drug user”? How far can they stretch the meaning of that? It’s a terrible law.
Interesting. 🤔
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.