National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
David L. Rosenthal
August 12, 2019


"The problem with the Second Amendment..." Some people would not read further before deciding that whoever wrote the preceding phrase must be an enemy of freedom and rights. After all, the text of the amendment ends with "shall not be infringed," so that should be all one has to say. Reality, however, is more complex, as recent history bears out.

Some people should not be allowed to bear arms. Some people want to harm the innocent, and it would be unwise and unjust to facilitate their ability to do so. No one in their right mind would try to refute this.

The problem is that liberals and globalists want to use that reality as a basis to infringe the rights of the other 99.9% of the gun-owning population.

The Second Amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The problem with that is that those who refuse to use guns responsibly have no right to bear arms, since they unjustly endanger the rights of others to life and peaceful existence. The right to bear arms gives no one license to use arms to kill, maim, rob, or terrorize others. Those who use arms to do such things forfeit the right to bear arms.

But since the Second Amendment does not specify these facts, they seem to escape the notice of those who insist that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed under any circumstances. That is unfortunate.

While some should not be allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, based on their wrongful intent to abuse the right, or on their propensity to cause harm to others, it is just as wrong to abuse or infringe the unalienable rights of responsible gun owners, solely because a small minority misuse their guns for wrongful purposes.

And while some should not be allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, it is wrong to circumvent constitutional requirements in order to expedite confiscation of guns. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No one is authorized to violate it. Anyone who violates it is engaged in imposition of unlawful acts.

Red Flag laws that authorize the confiscation of the guns of anyone while circumventing the constitutional requirement of due process are unlawful. Due process is required by two constitutional amendments, and the alternative, basing confiscation solely on the assertions of law enforcement officials, is clearly an invitation to imposition of totalitarian rule.

The day that courts bases the orders they issue on the unsubstantiated testimony of officials will be the day that freedom vanishes from America, as on that basis there would be no acts of abuse that could not be committed by government while justifying them on the basis of the words of an official.

Red Flag laws set an extremely dangerous, unlawful, unconstitutional precedent that can lead to no good. Some action is needed to determine, based on real facts and solid reasons, who must be prohibited from bearing arms. But that must not be determined on the basis of unbridled fear, or on the unsubstantiated claims of anyone.




https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_problem_with_the_second_amendment.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
The day that courts bases the orders they issue on the unsubstantiated testimony of officials will be the day that freedom vanishes from America, as on that basis there would be no acts of abuse that could not be committed by government while justifying them on the basis of the words of an official.
Reading current and proposed laws,there are no provisions for "unsubstantiated testimony of officials." The codes are fraught with words like, "affidavit," of the concerned, review of a judge, and a time period set for future review to determine the eligibility reversal.

To understand gun red flag laws, look at current CPS red flag laws.

In both cases, due process prevails.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
There can never be due process without the accused/defendant present to defend himself from the accuser. Any and all red flag laws should be done away with, if for no other reason than some judge taking the word of one person not vetted properly over the word of the accused..

The only people who may not own a weapon/gun, is a felon, by a written law, mentally unstable person,by a law, and anyone that is a habitual user/addict to drugs, by a law. If you have ever filled out a 4473(sic) to obtain a fire arm, it is in the questions that you say yes or no to, and if you lie about it on the form , then you are committing a felony.

The only way to change the Constitution is by law from the House and Senate. Those in office now took an oath to abide by and defend the Constitution, but not many do for they are career politicians and should be voted out.
If you read the preamble to the Constitution---WE THE PEOPLE-FOR THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE. How many in office actually could recite that to the American people of the U.S.without reading it.

The last words on guns is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON and no NEW laws should be made on them. Just stiffer penalties for breaking them.

They (GOV.) have already took my bump stock and it was just a piece of plastic that I bought and had to destroy because it made a weapon capable of firing faster, even with a single pull of the trigger for each shot. Was approved by BATFE and not classified as a gun for it was not a receiver with the fire control group, so now they will ban all semi automatic weapons so you can only fire one shot at a time.

I wonder if they will ban Mikulek from shooting? (sic)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
There can never be due process without the accused/defendant present to defend himself from the accuser. Any and all red flag laws should be done away with, if for no other reason than some judge taking the word of one person not vetted properly over the word of the accused..

The only people who may not own a weapon/gun, is a felon, by a written law, mentally unstable person,by a law, and anyone that is a habitual user/addict to drugs, by a law. If you have ever filled out a 4473(sic) to obtain a fire arm, it is in the questions that you say yes or no to, and if you lie about it on the form , then you are committing a felony.

The only way to change the Constitution is by law from the House and Senate. Those in office now took an oath to abide by and defend the Constitution, but not many do for they are career politicians and should be voted out.
If you read the preamble to the Constitution---WE THE PEOPLE-FOR THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE. How many in office actually could recite that to the American people of the U.S.without reading it.

The last words on guns is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON and no NEW laws should be made on them. Just stiffer penalties for breaking them.

They (GOV.) have already took my bump stock and it was just a piece of plastic that I bought and had to destroy because it made a weapon capable of firing faster, even with a single pull of the trigger for each shot. Was approved by BATFE and not classified as a gun for it was not a receiver with the fire control group, so now they will ban all semi automatic weapons so you can only fire one shot at a time.

I wonder if they will ban Mikulek from shooting? (sic)
The idea is to make some red flags by a law.

After that's done, it'll be OK, right?

Under Article Five, the Constitution can be amended in two ways: through a two-thirds majority vote in Congress or by a two-thirds vote of a national convention at the request of at least two-thirds of the states. To become operative, three-quarters of the states, or state ratifying conventions, must ratify.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
In reference to David L. Rosenthal, if there were no "gun free zones" the mass shooters would lose their prime targets, large groups of unarmed people.
Walmart is not a "gun free zone."

That goofball who wore body armour, and had all the tools for a mass shooting inside a Walmart as a "social experiment," was apprehended by an off-duty fireman.

One eyewitness who helped save children at the El Paso Walmart was armed. That Walmart is not a "gun free zone," either.

How does that fit with your narrative?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
Walmart is not a "gun free zone."

That goofball who wore body armour, and had all the tools for a mass shooting inside a Walmart as a "social experiment," was apprehended by an off-duty fireman.

One eyewitness who helped save children at the El Paso Walmart was armed. That Walmart is not a "gun free zone," either.

How does that fit with your narrative?
All it takes is 1 armed citizen to stop a shooter.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
All it takes is 1 armed citizen to stop a shooter.
I don't disagree with that, but:

1.) How often has that actually happened as a ratio of all shootings and

2.) Why didn't it happen in any Walmart?

Self defense, which is the objective of civilian carry, does not extend to taking offensive action. That's the job description of the police.

Here's a thought:

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Not okay. Those laws would be unconstitutional.
They would be unconstitutional only if they were found to be so.

17 states have some form of red flag laws for guns and more have bills going through the process.

When the federal government tries to legislate red flag laws for guns, the courts will decide the constitutionality.

Until then, the phrase, "... would be unconstitutional" has no standing among those not in the legislative, judicial and executive branches.
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
They would be unconstitutional only if they were found to be so.

17 states have some form of red flag laws for guns and more have bills going through the process.

When the federal government tries to legislate red flag laws for guns, the courts will decide the constitutionality.

Until then, the phrase, "... would be unconstitutional" has no standing among those not in the legislative, judicial and executive branches.
There you go again. Advocating for surrender of individual rights to the government, all in the name of 'safety' and feeling good. You're doing that an awful lot lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigNastyCowboy

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Here. Chew on this for a while.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Caper

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
And this!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
The only way to change the Constitution is by law from the House and Senate. Those in office now took an oath to abide by and defend the Constitution, but not many do for they are career politicians and should be voted out.
If you read the preamble to the Constitution---WE THE PEOPLE-FOR THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE. How many in office actually could recite that to the American people of the U.S.without reading it.
I hate to be "that guy" but the Constitution doesn't say this. Firstly, there is a lot more to creating an amendment than just Congress passing it. It will have to be ratified by the state legislatures. Otherwise the country would have been screwed by now. Secondly, the phrase "...For the people, and by the people..." was said by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, not in the preamble to the Constitution. And Lincoln took it from John Wycliffe regarding the translation of the Bible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,745 Posts
A government of the government, for the​ government, by the government.
The above sentence is the description of a communist state
 
  • Like
Reactions: Levant

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
The Second Amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The problem with that is that those who refuse to use guns responsibly have no right to bear arms, since they unjustly endanger the rights of others to life and peaceful existence. The right to bear arms gives no one license to use arms to kill, maim, rob, or terrorize others. Those who use arms to do such things forfeit the right to bear arms.
In Blue, Rosenthal misinterprets justice and the Constitution. Then, in Red, tells why he was wrong in the Blue text..

Everyone has the right to defense of their own life, their families, their homes - to defend their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They don't have the right to harm others except in the defense of their own rights. If they harm others then punish them. That's what prisons are for.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top