Jump to content
Jameson76

Sad sign of the times

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MattR said:

While the constitution talks about rights it doesn't talk much about responsibilities.

The constitution does talk about the duties and responsibilities of elected officials.

The Constitution is a blueprint for the federal government. It is not a blueprint for society in general. It does not instruct private citizens in how they should conduct their lives. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 2:27 PM, David CO said:

The constitution does talk about the duties and responsibilities of elected officials.

The Constitution is a blueprint for the federal government. It is not a blueprint for society in general. It does not instruct private citizens in how they should conduct their lives. 

And yet the constitution does refer to well-regulated, and regulations are rules.  We abide by them.  Companies abide by them.  But apparently, we don't want to regulate here regardless of what the constitution says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, JustAScoutMom said:

And yet the constitution does refer to well-regulated, and regulations are rules.  We abide by them.  Companies abide by them.  But apparently, we don't want to regulate here regardless of what the constitution says.

Apparently not.  For example, I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would oppose closing the background-check loopholes such as gun shows and Internet sales.  I would think that any rational person would want to make sure that everyone gets checked out before they can buy a gun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JustAScoutMom said:

And yet the constitution does refer to well-regulated, and regulations are rules.  We abide by them.  Companies abide by them.  But apparently, we don't want to regulate here regardless of what the constitution says. 

You misunderstand what 'well regulated' means in the Second Amendment.  The first 'well regulated militia' clause explains the reason of the second 'right to keep and bear arms' clause. Regulated meant 'proficient in the use of arms' as written at the time.  The 'militia' are all able-bodied persons.  In no way does it or has it ever meant to be a right regulated by any congress. None of the Bill or Rights limit or seek to regulate citizens' rights, only recognizes and limits governments' ability to limit citizens' rights. The Federalist Papers No. 29 and 46 along with Supreme Court case DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago are good places to start in order to better understand this.  It has been repeatedly reaffirmed that armed self-defense is a fundamental right that shall not be infringed upon, no different than any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SB_Eagle said:

You misunderstand what 'well regulated' means in the Second Amendment.  The first 'well regulated militia' clause explains the reason of the second 'right to keep and bear arms' clause. Regulated meant 'proficient in the use of arms' as written at the time.  The 'militia' are all able-bodied persons.  In no way does it or has it ever meant to be a right regulated by any congress. None of the Bill or Rights limit or seek to regulate citizens' rights, only recognizes and limits governments' ability to limit citizens' rights. The Federalist Papers No. 29 and 46 along with Supreme Court case DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago are good places to start in order to better understand this.  It has been repeatedly reaffirmed that armed self-defense is a fundamental right that shall not be infringed upon, no different than any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

Supreme Court has not been consistent.  You can also look at prior decisions that focused on the militia as being the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Presser vs Illinois claimed the national government cannot regulate guns but the states can.

US vs Miller

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

Constitutional scholars disagree.  Liberals focus on the well regulated militia and can point to clear case law.  Conservatives focus on the people portion and point to other case law.  Even with recent decisions  and the current Court makeup there is plenty of space for additional gun control.  The Supreme Court just denied an appeal of California’s 10 day wait period.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SB_Eagle said:

You misunderstand what 'well regulated' means in the Second Amendment.  The first 'well regulated militia' clause explains the reason of the second 'right to keep and bear arms' clause. Regulated meant 'proficient in the use of arms' as written at the time.  The 'militia' are all able-bodied persons.  In no way does it or has it ever meant to be a right regulated by any congress. None of the Bill or Rights limit or seek to regulate citizens' rights, only recognizes and limits governments' ability to limit citizens' rights. The Federalist Papers No. 29 and 46 along with Supreme Court case DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago are good places to start in order to better understand this.  It has been repeatedly reaffirmed that armed self-defense is a fundamental right that shall not be infringed upon, no different than any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

And yet, there is absolutely no way that we are allowing only those with demonstrated proficiency with basic weaponry to use/bear arms.  That is where you and I will have to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, JustAScoutMom said:

And yet the constitution does refer to well-regulated, and regulations are rules.  We abide by them.  Companies abide by them.  But apparently, we don't want to regulate here regardless of what the constitution says. 

The Bill of Rights was enacted to limit the power of government, not to expand it. The framers did not intend for the Second Amendment to be misinterpreted and misused to expand the scope of governmental interference on the private citizen.

It amazes me that anyone would argue that the Bill of Rights calls for an expansion of the power of government.

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JustAScoutMom said:

And yet, there is absolutely no way that we are allowing only those with demonstrated proficiency with basic weaponry to use/bear arms.  That is where you and I will have to disagree.

I'll explain again.  No matter how you view or want to view the wording or meaning of 'well-regulated' or 'militia' in the first clause, you are attempting to evaluate the JUSTIFICATION clause as if it were the OPERATIVE clause, which clearly recognizes the already existing 'people's right to bear arms' and states that it 'shall not be infringed'.

 I view Duty to Country as being LOYAL to it and the original legislative framework and that includes understanding how and why they were written, and to defend it from those who wish to enjoy what liberty provides them while criticizing the methods by which it is defended.

I read a news story this morning about how the South Africa’s parliament has overwhelmingly voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of land without compensation.  It is witnessed that their government uses brutal tactics against the landowners, including murder.  They have no Second Amendment to protect their right to defend what's left of their liberty.  Historically, this is the direct end result of extreme policies being pushed even here in the United States.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

Apparently not.  For example, I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would oppose closing the background-check loopholes such as gun shows and Internet sales.  I would think that any rational person would want to make sure that everyone gets checked out before they can buy a gun.

Sales from licensed dealers have to go through the paperwork process and background process no matter where the sale is made.  Out-of-state sales (such as through the Internet) have to be done through a dealer in the buyer's state, through the paperwork and background process.  As for private sales, it is illegal to sell to a prohibited person.

In most of these events, the background check system already in place failed due to the lack of input from governmental agencies.  In the case of the recent Florida shooting, law enforcement failed repeatedly at every single level both before and during the event, while policies are in place to prevent protecting against these events.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SB_Eagle said:

As for private sales, it is illegal to sell to a prohibited person.

If I wanted to sell my firearm, how would I know if they are a prohibited person? I don't know how to do my own private federal background check - or if it is even possible for a private citizen to do so.

The so-called "gun show loophole" does not require me or anyone in the secondary market (e.g. private sales including some of those at gun shows), know really anything about the purchaser.

Not that it would have made a difference in this specific instance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

If I wanted to sell my firearm, how would I know if they are a prohibited person? I don't know how to do my own private federal background check - or if it is even possible for a private citizen to do so.

The so-called "gun show loophole" does not require me or anyone in the secondary market (e.g. private sales including some of those at gun shows), know really anything about the purchaser.

Not that it would have made a difference in this specific instance.

Depends on the type firearm and state as the process differs from firearm type and capacity.

You can transfer (sell yourself) or consignment sell your firearm through someone or some shop which has a FFL (Federal Firearm License) who can call in the background check if required. There is a fee for this. The FFL will first ask for identification which depending on the state and firearm type may be a license to carry, firearm permit, and at the least a drivers license.  Some out of state firearm transfers, e.g. pistols, must go through a FFL in your home state.

In some states, you can FTF (face to face) transfer at a local or state police station who will background check.

And if the firearm is 100yrs. old, say a  working, double heat-treated WW1 1903, no FFL transfer is required... considered antique.

I hope I got the above correct.   That said, the federal background check NICS is only as good as data provided by the states but no one talks about that. Massachusetts will NOT provide mental health data to the FBI/NICS citing HIPAA privacy laws. We saw recently the USAF (Devin Kelley mass shooting) had not provided conviction data to the FBI/NICS. Other military branches failed as well.

Much to consider.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

TEXARKANA, Arkansas - Boy Scouts of America is now operating under increased security standards after a brush with unfriendly visitors.

After installing surveillance cameras and monitors throughout the Caddo Area Council building, Scout Executive Anthony Escobar is taking safety a step further with an active shooter course led by Texarkana, Arkansas Lieutenant Chris Rankin. He says, the worst time to try to formulate a plan is when the event is taking place, you need to have at least given it some consideration and some thought before hand."

Lt. Rankin encourages people to follow three steps, avoid, deny and defend. "Deny access to the building again through locks and  through again a good lock down procedure and then the last case of that scenario is to defend yourself," say Rankin.

Check out video interview with SE Anthony Escobar.

http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/tapd-offers-active-shooter-training-to-boy-scouts-of-america/1026915083

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 3:39 PM, NJCubScouter said:

Apparently not.  For example, I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would oppose closing the background-check loopholes such as gun shows and Internet sales.  I would think that any rational person would want to make sure that everyone gets checked out before they can buy a gun.

A couple things:  

1. for the first 202 years, we had no back ground check system, and we had very little gun violence... it wasn't until the prohibition of alcohol that gun violence started to climb.  Now we have the prohibition of narcotics, which also facilitates the VAST majority of gun violence. 

2. Mass shooters pass back ground checks, they have done so time and again.  Background checks check for prior behavior, someone with no record passes a back ground check.

3. The idea that a state with weaker gun control allows people to buy guns and then truck them back into states with strong gun control fails all sorts of logic tests... why would a criminal travel great distance to perpetrate crime where there is more gun control, when they just illegally purchased guns in the state with the weak gun control?  

4. No other right in this country requires you to prove your innocence before exercising the right. none.  The very concept of justice in this country is predicated on assumed innocence.

5. The black market flourishes and criminals, get their guns from there.  Not gun shows, not FFLs.  

6. Background checks do not stop those who would wish to do violence from getting guns.  

7. Mass shooters are proven methodical and patient.  If they know they can't pass a back ground check they will secure whatever they need other ways. 

8. Internet sales require background checks, the firearm needs to be transferred through an FFL, who will not transfer the gun to the buyer, unless they pass a NICS check. 

9. The very idea of a background check is absurd.  It essentially says "this person is so dangerous to society, we WILL NOT let them buy a gun.... but they are free to walk among society and kill and rape by any other means they wish, trucks, gasoline, arson, stabbing, bombs." this is absurd on it's face.  The justice system is what needs reform.  If a person is so dangerous they cannot own a gun, they are quite literally too dangerous to be free among the general public and they should be kept behind bars or in mental health facilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×