Why US liberals are now buying guns too

RadBanker said:

What are your thoughts on municipalities that outright forbid open carry, nations that forbid firearms for self-defense purposes, and US states that restrict magazine size?

Click to expand...

so, to precipitate the possible contentious commentary, the best you can throw out is to start with vagueness?

nations referenced? meaning world nations?

then back to American's society on magazine capacity?

ipse

RadBanker said:

What are your thoughts on municipalities that outright forbid open carry, nations that forbid firearms for self-defense purposes, and US states that restrict magazine size?

Click to expand...

As a newbie I suggest you need to do a lot of reading on this forum before asking that question.

Nightmare said:

Which would those be, please? The devil is in the details of the particular jurisdiction. Firearms forbade for self-defense but allowed for hunting and sport, is there one?

Click to expand...

There is a difference. Self-defense is an inalienable right and hunting is defined by most states as a sport, meaning a privilege.

color of law said:

As a newbie I suggest you need to do a lot of reading on this forum before asking [strike]that[/strike] those questions.

Click to expand...

FIFY

color of law said:

There is a difference. Self-defense is an inalienable right and hunting is defined by most states as a sport, meaning a privilege.

Click to expand...

Then by the same criteria target pratice and training would/could be regulated as a privilege.

I do not see it that way, but rather subscribe to the plain reading of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment = "shall not be infringed" wherein the federal government reserves for itself the sole ability to prescribe anything related to firearms. IMO, anything that states or municipalities have passed into law that exceed the Constitutional standard are void or voidable.

To all that post here, but especially to those new amongst us - read the Forum Rules.

Particularly Rule #15
" WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

Promoting revolution against our government is unquestionly a direct violation of this rule and will gain you much negative attention.

Grapeshot said:

Then by the same criteria target pratice and training would/could be regulated as a privilege.

I do not see it that way, but rather subscribe to the plain reading of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment = "shall not be infringed" wherein the federal government reserves for itself the sole ability to prescribe anything related to firearms. IMO, anything that states or municipalities have passed into law that exceed the Constitutional standard are void or voidable.

Click to expand...

Oh, I must disagree---- What the Government reserves to itself it can clearly alter and change---

To be clear---The Declaration of Independence clearly states that Governments govern by the consent of the governed and gives the various reasons our Founders sought to and did become INDEPENDENT from a tyrannical government forming a new government (Initially via the Articles of Confederation and then when that government proved to be unworkable (too close to anarchy) via the Constitution to form a slightly stronger central government).
The Constitution is the framework upon which this government in build. The Bill of Rights tells the government in clear and distinct terms what this government MAY NOT DO. So the federal government CANNOT take it upon itself to do what you've suggested. The PEOPLE have not given the government any power to regulate in this specific case the Keeping and Bearing of ARMS!
Adding further, a proper role of government is to preserve and respect those UNALIENABLE rights of the People and by this the Feds should properly and clearly ensure that NO GOVERNMENTAL entity (Federal, State, County, City) EVER attempt to INFRINGE ON THESE RIGHTS!

JoeSparky said:

Oh, I must disagree---- What the Government reserves to itself it can clearly alter and change---

--snipped--

Click to expand...

Bad day at the corral busting broncs - Inserted Va state premption for federal 2A.

Grapeshot said:

Bad day at the corral busting broncs - Inserted Va state premption for federal 2A.

Click to expand...

As in the Virginia State government is now claiming their edicts preempt the same U.S. Constitution which John Blair and James Madison Jr., as duly-authorized representatives of of the State of Virginia, "present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America," including agreeing to abide the Constitution and all it's amendments?

That colony?

Denver tried that. They didn't win. The decision hung, meaning the Colorado State Supreme Court didn't have enough oomph to strike it down. Undoubtedly they were having the same problem then that Virginia was having on your bad day. Thus, even though Denver's "law" is flagrantly un-Constitutional, it remains standing, at least until someone whats to spend $2 to $5 million taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

McDonald took his issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. Heller took his issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. They won. Mostly...

The point is that the State of Virginia, as a legal entity, has already pledged to abide by the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.

"Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures [including the Virginia State Legislature] on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. Of the first tend amendments we call our Bill of Rights, one of them, the last one, provides special protection for both the State and the People: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The problem with Virginia's un-Constitutional gyrations is that the right to keep and bear arms WAS delegated to the United States by the Constitution, specifically via both the Second Amendment as well as Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically states, "Amendments ... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution."

Let me make this simple, in deference to the Virginia State Legislators of today who apparently either do not understand or fail to recognize their duty to the law under which they operate: Virginia specifically, expressly, and emphatically AGREED to defer any and all aspirations of "preemption" to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment commensurate with the protections and agreements provided in the U.S. Constitution itself.

The phrase, "may not" is negotiable. There's wiggle room with this phrase.

An intermediate phrase, "will not" is more emphatic. Generally, there is no wiggle room except for the specifically listed and authorized exceptions.

The phrase, "shall not" is not negotiable at all. It is an absolute imperative.

The U.S. military's uses of these phrases originates with their use in the U.S. Constitution. Their use in the Constitution established their meaning.

Therefore, in light of reality as clearly described above, Virginia has ZERO legal recourse to ignore the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, particularly the nondescript and therefore ubiquitous scope of the Second Amendments, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are not exceptions to "shall not."

Thus, when a State attempts to limit, curb, modify, control, impede, or otherwise change the meaning, implementation, or enforcement of the Second Amendment, they are most certainly infringing upon it, and that is something We the people can NEVER allow them to do.

I know it's an uphill battle, Grapeshot, and at times we all feel discouraged at the deviousness and sometimes sheer stupidity of our representatives and senators, but hang in there! It's worth it.

Grapeshot, are you feeling OK????? You double posted.

color of law said:

Grapeshot, are you feeling OK????? You double posted.

Click to expand...

I do that with mirrors. :lol:

Nah, that happened as the forum was shutting down for updates to the server. When it didn't go, I clicked it again. When the forum came back up, there both of them were.

Grapeshot said:

I do that with mirrors. :lol:

Nah, that happened as the forum was shutting down for updates to the server. When it didn't go, I clicked it again. When the forum came back up, there both of them were.

Click to expand...

So, the end of the world is not coming.......or just not yet....

Grapeshot said:

Then by the same criteria target pratice and training would/could be regulated as a privilege.

I do not see it that way, but rather subscribe to the plain reading of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment = "shall not be infringed" wherein the federal government reserves for itself the sole ability to prescribe anything related to firearms. IMO, anything that states or municipalities have passed into law that exceed the Constitutional standard are void or voidable.

Click to expand...

Shooting your firearm is a Second Amendment right.

Prohibiting persons from firing their firearms on their private property would be a violation of their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. This would also apply to any person that uses shooting ranges. This was clearly decided by the case of Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.2d 684, (7th Cir. 2011). The Ezell case included the following plaintiffs: Rhonda Ezell; several other individuals; Action Target, Inc.; Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and Illinois State Rifle Association. The case involved a challenge to an ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned public shooting ranges and a request for an injunction against the enforcement of the ban. The District Court ruled against the preliminary injunction requested by the Plaintiffs to enjoin the City of Chicago’s ban. The Seventh Circuit reversed. In doing so the court made the following statements regarding the application of the Second Amendment to shooting ranges;

The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn't mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.

Click to expand...

and

The City's firing-range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the "law-abiding, responsible citizens" of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.

Click to expand...

The Ezell case addressed both the Second Amendment and its application to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, it is clear that individuals have a constitutional right to use shooting ranges and just shoot their firearms.

IMHO, hunting to survive is a right, for sport is a privilege. Hunting was done long before firearms, from the beginning of man. The possession, carrying, training associated with firearms are all rights. But there are certain reasonable limitations on those rights when they infringe on other rights. I would be crazy to suggest that murder falls under the second amendment. I would believe a law preventing hunting on Michigan Ave in the middle of Chicago would not be an infringement. With all rights come responsibility, and that is where laws come in. Some people cannot be responsible if it is not spelled out. But only laws that protect the rights of others, as well as ourselves should be constitutional. Feel good laws never work.

I think it's because of the gun violence and frankly you don't see a responsible gun owner going in and shooting people.

This last kid Roof in my opinion shouldn't been able to purchase a firearm without a psychological evaluation and we're against the test because it's all about our constitutional right to have a firearm and that's fine. Do I carry? No because I'm handicapped and I'm not physically able to control my movements. I wish I could carry
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

WalkingWolf said:

IMHO, hunting to survive is a right, for sport is a privilege. Hunting was done long before firearms, from the beginning of man. The possession, carrying, training associated with firearms are all rights. But there are certain reasonable limitations on those rights when they infringe on other rights. I would be crazy to suggest that murder falls under the second amendment. I would believe a law preventing hunting on Michigan Ave in the middle of Chicago would not be an infringement. With all rights come responsibility, and that is where laws come in. Some people cannot be responsible if it is not spelled out. But only laws that protect the rights of others, as well as ourselves should be constitutional. Feel good laws never work.

Click to expand...

i believe the windy city already has such a 'hunting' prohibition ~ hasn't helped curb the tide.

2016 Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 705 (F: 64; M: 721)
Shot & Wounded: 3629 (F: 374; M: 3254)
Total Shot: 4334
Total Homicides: 785

Race Victim Assailant
Black 597 97
Hispanic 128 30
White/Other 38 5
Police - 11
Self Defense - 9
Unknown 8 619

(http://heyjackass.com/) (with specifics where folk were shot)

ipse

solus said:

i believe the windy city already has such a 'hunting' prohibition ~ hasn't helped curb the tide.

2016 Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 705 (F: 64; M: 721)
Shot & Wounded: 3629 (F: 374; M: 3254)
Total Shot: 4334
Total Homicides: 785

RaceVictimAssailant
Black59797
Hispanic12830
White/Other385
Police-11
Self Defense-9
Unknown8619

(http://heyjackass.com/) (with specifics where folk were shot)

ipse

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the police is higher but whatever


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ty, welcome to the forum, and glad to see you are from my favorite city and state ~ the land of disenchantment

appreciate you responded to my post and i am sure if you are aware if you questions the stats, you should challenge those in charge of the cite i referenced...

remember, the FBI felt and then did state Roof shouldn't have been granted permission to purchase a week after an extensive reevaluation of his background AFTER the shootings. quote...the FBI made the error due to a breakdown in the background check system and confusion with paperwork between the FBI, local police departments and county jurisdictions. Due to Roof's admission during an arrest in late February that he was in possession of drugs, he should not have been permitted to buy the gun he used in the massacre. However, an agent working for the FBI's background check system who was performing the review on Roof failed to contact the Columbia, South Carolina, police department which arrested Roof, in part because of a clerical error in records listing the wrong agency. Because Roof's background check took longer than three days to complete, the gun shop owner was allowed to sell the gun to Roof. The law permits gun sellers to sell guns if a background check takes longer than three days to complete. unquote.

again, welcome and look forward to your continued commentary.

ipse

ty.fetty said:

I think it's because of the gun violence and frankly you don't see a responsible gun owner going in and shooting people.

This last kid Roof in my opinion shouldn't been able to purchase a firearm without a psychological evaluation and we're against the test because it's all about our constitutional right to have a firearm and that's fine. Do I carry? No because I'm handicapped and I'm not physically able to control my movements. I wish I could carry

Click to expand...

More of a reason for your caregivers to be in a position to protect you and their-selves.

color of law said:

More of a reason for your caregivers to be in a position to protect you and their-selves.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are agreeing with me


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk