National Gun Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
53,706 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It's the Constitution that has the final say

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
August 7, 2019


Last weekend’s mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, have produced a flood of words about everything from gun control to mental illness to white nationalism. Most of those words have addressed the right to keep and bear arms as if it were a gift from the government. It isn’t.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its pre-existence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it.

It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety.

It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership, and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety.

Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No. We know that because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have — or the government has.

The government? Yes, the government. That’s so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. If you don’t believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts.

Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?

In theory, all of this was known by President Donald Trump when he addressed the nation last Monday and attributed the weekend slaughters to mental illness, the freedom to express hateful ideas on the Internet and violent video games. He should have consulted his lawyers before he spoke.

Federal law prohibits records of mental deficiencies, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government’s databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the Internet or games played there.

Then he condemned hate. Do you believe his condemnations? He has, after all, praised the white supremacists at Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as “good people,” even though one of them pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of a young black woman, and even though, as a candidate and later as president, he argued that the Southwest United States was being “invaded” and “infested” by Hispanics.

That white supremacy ideology — “let’s repel the Hispanic invaders because the feds won’t do so” — resonates in the El Paso killer’s manifesto, which he published about 20 minutes before he began killing. That ideology is far more widespread than most Americans realize. The FBI recently demonstrated as much. This form of hatred of people because of their immutable characteristics breeds violence.

We know that some among us love to hate. That is their right, but they have no right to act violently beyond their perverse thoughts. And all people have the right to repel such violence by using guns to do so.

The president also offered his support for “red flag” laws. These horrific statutes permit police or courts to seize guns from those deemed dangerous. Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do. When the Soviets used psychiatric testimony to predict criminal behavior, President Ronald Reagan condemned it. Now, the president wants it here.

The United States is not New Zealand, where a national legislature, animated by fear and provoked by tragedy, can impair fundamental liberties by majority vote. In America, neither Congress nor the states can outlaw whatever handguns or rifles they want to outlaw or infringe upon the right to own them.

The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.

That’s why we have a Constitution.




https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/7/few-words-about-guns-and-personal-liberty/?fbclid=IwAR31vvCeQqi00ADdHeLlkYyUh16NxPXoQNj9YcIsGPkoQbrn-jDdvhgRHQM
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
ALERT: Op-Ed

Dear Mr. Napolitano: Disclaimer: I'm removing the inflammatory bias so we can get to the heart of the matter.

With all of this as background, the feds and the states face a choice between restriction of some form of gun ownership, and the realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safetyy.
Proper training and safety requirements are unacceptable restrictions on the population by way of permitless carry.

The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have – or the government has.
Really? Where's my grenade? I want a rocket launcher., some C4 and a jet fighter and a red fire engine.

Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.
Ever hear of warrants? And red flags laws don't have punishments. No one's going to be jailed or flogged. The template for CPS isn't unconstitutional and red flag laws aren't different whether it's children or guns.

In America, neither Congress nor the states can outlaw whatever handguns or rifles they want to outlaw or infringe upon the right to own them.
Capture.JPG

The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty – speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership – would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.
Felons can't own guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future. Ever hear of warrants? And red flags laws don't have punishments. No one's going to be jailed or flogged.

The template for CPS isn't unconstitutional and red flag laws aren't different whether it's children or guns.

I no longer have children at home but plenty of guns and you may say I'm crazy and have my guns taken away from me on YOUR word through the CPSs? Damn Due Process? Maybe one of your Grandchildren will do that to you because they are Liberal and hate guns.

We don't need any new gun laws.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Red flag laws are unconstitutional.
Let's grind on this one, OK?

FEDERAL red flag laws for guns do not exist. It's not accurate to assign attributes to the vacuous. There are many proposals on the table, and what any final ones will actually contain is not known.

At the state level, red flag laws for guns are not unconstitutional, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Let's grind on this one, OK?

FEDERAL red flag laws for guns do not exist. It's not accurate to assign attributes to the vacuous. There are many proposals on the table, and what any final ones will actually contain is not known.

At the state level, red flag laws for guns are not unconstitutional, right?
Still without due process. That is in the Constitution. If you do away with due process, then our Nation becomes a Dictatorship. You want That? I don't and won't!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Still without due process. That is in the Constitution. If you do away with due process, then our Nation becomes a Dictatorship. You want That? I don't and won't!!
The "due process," objection is repetitive, compact, and often misunderstood.

Of course I agree that due process is a requirement and even if I didn't, I would just be wrong because it's right there in the Constitution which we both have studied in some detail.

So I agree with you. :wink:

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia already have laws that allow “extreme risk protection orders.”

The laws authorize courts to issue orders allowing police to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person deemed by a judge as posing a risk of violence.

Often, requests for the orders come from relatives and friends concerned about a gun owner who expresses suicidal thoughts or threatens to harm others.
The judge has the option of denying confiscation. Also, the judge will set the terms of "temporary," either by a set term (six weeks) or by mitigation (release by mental evaluator) or other.

By "request for the orders," we're talking about affidavits signed under oath by those making the requests. Judges don't "rubber-stamp" requests. They look at the merits of a case and act accordingly.

I think you'll agree that it doesn't get any more "due process" than that.

Again, you and I are on the same page. I'm not in favour (at all) of random gun-grabbing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
@popeye

I agree they are victims, but we don't know if they were actually innocent. Especially taking into account who the shooter was targeting in El Paso.

Lets assume for a moment that the shooter was not mentally ill. What drove him to target Mexicans specifically. To the shooter maybe every mexican he saw was an illegal or immigrant that refused to assimilate or mexicans took his jobs that he previously use to do, we don't know after the fact. But that anger came from somewhere. He was already angry before he met up with the supremacist. in other words the shooter did not see innocent people he saw people who where either doing him direct or indirect harm and wanted to stop it.

I don't agree with how he chose to stop them. Who he viewed as the wrong doers.

Victims and innocence is not the same thing and are not joint.

I don't like how people distort people who have died and put them on some holy never been bad pedestal. Sometimes the victim was part of the problem. but the problem is too complicated to resolve to be done online.

my worst tormentor suicide in high school and as far as I know everyone in school and else where put that monster on a pedestal that belonged to a person who has never harmed anyone. But he harmed me so severely that I have a diagnosis caused by the damage he was a part of.

So to me unless the victim was 3 years old leave the innocent out of the subject when referring to them as a victim . You and I are not qualified to decide if he victim was truly innocent.

Another part of the problem is we have been discussing this as a individualist issue going where we have a group issue going on that are being interchanged. and should not be. the shooter was targeting a specific group not targeting individuals so we should be looking at this from the perspective of the group . supremacist vs Mexican.

there is always going to be race tension, Untill all the races are so mixed that you can no longer tell them apart and also conflict of culture. Blind Tolerance the Alt left is screaming for is not the answer either. Because if we were to tolerate other cultures we would have to accept For example Muslim culture its ok to marry and impregnate 13 year olds. I sure as hell not tolerate that here in the USA. If they want to do that they can go back to a purely or mostly muslim country where the practice is acceptable. But I expect muslims to conform to our standards on the issue and follow our rules and not marry 13 and impregnate them,. If they want to continue living here.

This last comment one is a bigy example in regards to whether the mexicans targeted were innocent or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
@up2it we need laws, they just need to be simple(strip the legalese, you and I need to understand it and non gun owners need to understand it ) and tested to be sure it is enforceable. Not violate due process etc.

example some of the states that enacted enhanced background checks are unenforceable because no one tested it to see if it would even be possible. Example state level police can not access the NCIS database that the enhanced background check required thus making the law unenforceable when the cop was to decide to allow a person to purchase a handgun.
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
53,706 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I agree they are victims, but we don't know if they were actually innocent.

Huh?? They were invited guests of a WalMart store. They were peaceably going about their business. Not one of them had done anything to the shooter deserving of death by his hand. Therefore, and in this case, innocent. The victim part is a given. So, innocent victims.

The remainder of the post seems to be the result of overthinking and projection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
@popeye
I did not say they deserved death by his hands EVER. I flatly said I did not agree with his actions. When bad things happen it not always involving that very moment. What we saw was the tipping point of a ongoing problem. That may not have even been about the individuals involved.

I didn't say they were not innocent either. I said we don't know they were innocent therefore we should not call them innocent. This blow up was accumulating over time. That goes beyond Walmart.

The reason we cant resolve these issues is because we are refusing to look deeper at the whole. Its not overthinking it at all. People are looking at this too shallowly thus we see this: "grab all the guns" or "there will be war if you try to take my guns" argument. when its deeper and actually doesn't have anything to do with guns specifically. Guns where used as an ends to a means.

The cause of this mass shooting is people (all of us) how we act towards each other every day, day in and out. people remember the things you do that causes them to take offense or harms them , that means your actions had a negative impact on others. They remember that and that influences their view of you. And if a certain demographic disproportionately does wrong towards an individual or is perceived as such that individual is going to perceive the whole of that demographic as a problem. Thus NOT innocent

There are specific reasons I don't like mexicans as a group. Almost all personal interactions with mexicans in last 5 years for me was very bad as in life and death bad. Where I was a victim of mexican criminal conduct that put me in a I am barely surviving and on death door position. The harm was caused by a fundamental cultural conflict of differences of right and wrong. and taking responsibility when you commit a wrong vs fleeing as to avoid responsibility . Or mexicans using services they should not be using. That lead to legit folks like myself being cut from programs due to not enough funding. Where if they had not used said services there would of been enough funding that I wouldn't of been booted due to not enough funds. Services I utilized were not open to everybody due to limited funds.

The example I just gave is at the heart of the problem. Its how people treat each other . The difference is some of us snap and others of us don't and pursue more meaningful action that does not cause murder. Like saying enough mexican immigrant prove they can thrive without harming or competing with americans that are using lifeline services like energy assistance, medicaid for disabled and elderly or taking all the affordable housing so there are none for Americans, etc I have seen these things first hand so its not regurgitated political points to scare the uninformed.

Innocent means "never done wrong" It is also a perspective. so from your perspective you perceive them as innocent because you don't know them but from the perspective of the shooter and others the "victims" where not innocent. because they were perceived that way based on a different perspective. So who is right and who is wrong??

problem is both sides are right.

The wrong is the action taken regarding their belief that they were in the right and thus justified. They were right just not justified in their actions therefore their actions was wrong.

this is not over thinking its a different perspective than your and the so called projecting I am not I was simply pointing out how that belief came to be. in support of my view as to why we should not be calling them innocent and just call them what they actually are "victims" nothing more nothing less.
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
53,706 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I say again. Overthinking and projection.

You start by claiming you NEVER said somethinig and then post nine paragraphs of touchy-freely BS attempting to justify your statement denying 'innocence'.

Listen, I'm sorry a Mexican whipped your ass while you were in High School. Feces occurs. It happens to the undeserving. It happens to the deserving. Thats' a fact. You can't change it. All you can do is deal with it and move forward after it happens to you. Dwelling on it. Attempting to understand why. Wallowing in it. Nitpicking. Those keep you stuck in time and ruin your life. They also tend to make you unwelcome in normal society. Over time, they'll make you crazy. Then YOU'RE primed to commit a criminal and insane act, such as taking innocent lives.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
I say again. Overthinking and projection.

You start by claiming you NEVER said somethinig and then post nine paragraphs of touchy-freely BS attempting to justify your statement denying 'innocence'.

Listen, I'm sorry a Mexican whipped your ass while you were in High School. Feces occurs. It happens to the undeserving. It happens to the deserving. Thats' a fact. You can't change it. All you can do is deal with it and move forward after it happens to you. Dwelling on it. Attempting to understand why. Wallowing in it. Nitpicking. Those keep you stuck in time and ruin your life. They also tend to make you unwelcome in normal society. Over time, they'll make you crazy. Then YOU'RE primed to commit a criminal and insane act, such as taking innocent lives.
Agreed.

I noticed the "innocent," in the context of Gimp's post was apparently spread across the victim's entire life history while most of us are framing "innocent," as relates to the single matter at hand.

When I die, it will be true that I am not innocent in all ways from birth to demise, but should something like El Paso be the cause, I was an innocent bystander, a random person at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There are specific reasons I don't like mexicans [sic] as a group.
Perhaps that's the most lucid of all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
There is no presumption of innocence when you are here(US) illegally Maybe that was his (9shooter) thinking.
We don't need any new laws, just stiffer penalties for those committed with any gun with no early release.Plus the crime committed with the gun.
And no State law should trump any Federal law, same as the one for marryjane. All laws in the aforementioned States that restrict guns can and should be overturned, but who/where will the money come from to take it to the Supreme Court with a competent lawyer ? The Supreme Court has said that individual States can enact their own laws for their people, just idiots that continue to live there with hopes of safety and to be protected by someone with a gun. WHEN they get there.
Safety and security begins at home, for yourself and family.

AGAIN---you open that door to laws that in my opinion are illegal, they will shove it open and take all you have and possibly kill you in doing it, all without due process and that Judge who only sees the evidence presented to him, which could be a lie or at best, second hand knowledge.

Criminals NEVER obey laws.


Mass shootings, politics, and the law
Michael Smith
August 13, 2019


In Federalist #51, James Madison wrote: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Madison’s perspective is applicable in today’s debate regarding gun laws. Society clearly needs laws because we are not angels -- but we also need to understand that laws function effectively when they are respected, and as crime statistics (including school shootings) indicate, there are those in society who simply will not and do not respect the law.

There can be no argument that once laws are duly passed, they should be respected and followed -- of that, few would argue -- but what is arguable is when laws are not respected, more laws do not result in more respect for those laws. The evidence is quite to the contrary, the effect is inversely proportional -- more laws without a change in enforcement results in less respect and less obedience. As Tacitus said, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state”.

Of course, nothing excuses the criminal use of firearms -- but as a recently uncovered CDC study from a 2013 reported, firearms are successfully used in approximately 2.5 million defensive situations each year. This is a number that greatly overwhelms the total criminal uses of firearms, including those defined as “mass shootings.” No one wants to see innocent people murdered, but gun owners take very seriously the responsibility to protect our families and ourselves. Gun owners see their ability and capability to effectively do so being stripped away by increased regulation.

Regulations are never simply for the criminal, like the law of gravity, they are equally applicable to all. Therefore, any across-the-board restriction of access to firearms to reduce gun crime also necessarily restricts protective use by law-abiding gun owners. In all honesty, gun owners are suspicious of the motives of those who push for increased legislation while ignoring the failures of the current legal regime without honestly considering the statistical facts of gun use, in suicides, in homicides and in defensive usage. The greatest of these facts is new restrictions will impact not only criminals but the 99.997% of gun owners who have never committed a crime
.

No book of laws, no matter how thick, will stop every bullet and the “Gun Free Zone” signs prove no words stop a committed offender. As the UK learned, banning guns simply leads to the same ends by different means. The UK is currently experiencing an epidemic of knife crime and is seeking to ban even more types of knives -- one must be 18 years old in the UK to even purchase a standard set of kitchen knives. Reasonable minds look upon such situations as absurd and absurdity is what gun owners see when they hear the cries for more “feelgood” legislation and restrictions, absent any attempts to correct the incoherence of current bureaucracy and the lax enforcement of existing laws.

Many note the right to life is the first right identified in the Declaration of Independence -- and that positioning must mean it is a “supreme” right, one rising above all others -- but if one truly believes in such a supreme right, one must also accept the defense of that right must also be supreme, that it must be defended at all costs and with any means necessary. To do otherwise puts the lie to the idea the right to live is supreme and renders the phrase “right to life” into trite political sloganeering.

In 1850, the noted French economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat wrote, “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”

The calls for more laws from those “made of finer clay” simply do not ring true. Achieving political motives will not reduce firearm deaths. History proves this. If we are to consider more laws, let us first consider an effort to make current laws effective by enforcing them.




https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...d_the_law.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
I give up Trying to get you to understand how your actions affect others and why one day the person you cause harm to comes back and does something stupid bad to you or others around you. leaving you wondering why that someone did such a hanous act.



violent acts are a series of steps leading up to the act itself. You will never be able to curb the act itself if you fail to understand the steps taken prior to the unforgivable act.



I was simply trying to get you to think outside the box to realize there is more to this act of vilence. Because you folks are repeatedly banging your head against the wall expecting a different outcome. Where people like myself are suffering the consiquences where you are blindly grasping at straws trying to solve a problem you either don't understand nor want to understand.



To my understanding this shooter was not angry person his entire life. If he was not, what happened to change that view to where he disliked imigrants or maybe it was illegals. . But was focused on mexicans due to bumping into sepremisists.



To stop these mass Killings, we need to understand what drove them to the act. That also includes looking at uncomfortable issues like what you and I and they did to the people around us. it sure as hell not mental illness from where I stand. He was of sound mind, he knew what he was doing.



Personally I think most of you use mental illness as a scapegoat. That most of these people are normal human beings that were stressed to the breakingpoint. Who where part of a society of humans made up of you , me, and them . Where we as a group made it intolerable for a human to function normally and thus decided to fight rather than flee.



I don't believe in taking the easy path. I have almost always taken the hard one. That includes looking at my own actions wondering if maybe at some point I did something in a chance encounter that influenced someone in a negative way to lead to bad outcome.



We can't change people but we can absolutly influence people in both positive and negative ways that ultimatly influences that person to either take positive action like signing petition to restrict future immigration or negative action like El paso.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top