How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” –Chief Justice John Marshall
United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cr.) 358, 396 (1805).​

Ok. That's all I'm going to say about this given that it's NOT what this thread is about. You say you are an "attorney", and a Constitutional Expert, and an "expert" on gun laws (you say do it for a living) and yet, you didn't know the above BY HEART! Which has been considered for decades the "gold standard" of Congressional Power.

You can agree or disagree with Chief Justice Marshal.... But you calling it "fiction-essentially a lie" makes my case!

Again: this is NOT the topic of this thread And I have no apetite to derail my own thread. For that reason, any other questions about this will be a link to this post.... But if I don't even answer, this is why.

BTW... And if you think the "prohibited" part includes the 2nd A. Here is a list of topics where that topic would be appropriate.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-a-single-shot.600040/page-45#post-1074405620

 

The NRA, and both political parties supported the "War On Crime". It has been an epic failure.

The Inconvenient Truth: Professional police, the criminal justice system, even after resorting to mass incarceration could not win "The War On Crime".

"Since President Lyndon Johnson first called for a “War on Crime” some fifty years ago, prisons, jails, and law enforcement institutions have functioned as a central engine of American in equality. It is one of the essential ironies of American history that this punitive campaign began during an era of liberal reform and at the height of the civil rights revolution, a moment when the nation seemed ready to embrace policies that would fully realize its egalitarian founding values. The year 1964 witnessed the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the launch of the federal initiatives that constituted the..."

From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
ELIZABETH HINTON
Copyright Date: 2016
Published by: Harvard University Press
Pages: 464
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjk2w72

When the American people are allowed to carry concealed handguns violent crime will no longer be a major problem.
There is no other rational way to stop the mass slaughter, mayhem and incarceration.

 

The Inconvenient Truth:

Criminals always have easy access to illegal guns.
They do not have to put up with any legally imposed inconvenience even in nations that have imposed gun bans.
Surely you know that by now.

 

Therefore, we need to reduce the number of guns that criminals have access TO. ALL guns start circulating by being put out on the streets legally.

 

I love it when Democrats tell us that Democrats don't want to ban all guns and then you have a few Democrats that actually tell the truth once in a blue moon.

 

Again, it will always be harder for criminals to obtain a pizza than to obtain illegal guns and illegal drugs.

"Global market value[edit]
Though one of the least profitable illegal trades, arms trafficking made an estimated $1.7-3.5 billion in 2014, making it the 9th largest criminal market, which was valued at $1.6-2.2 trillion.[29]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trafficking#cite_note-:2-29
May, Channing (2017). Transnational Crime and the Developing World. Global Financial Integrity. pp. xi.

 

"jabberwocky' doesn't negate the premise, either.

Nice attempt at posturing. Unfortunately, posturing doesn't improve your argument.

You are confused.

No one is claiming that people are not part of the problem, we are claiming that firearms greatly amplifies the problem, which the twist on the saying illustrates.

The expression, 'people don't kill people, people kill people' suggests that guns aren't part of the problem, but, they most certainly are because they allow a human fault to be amplified greatly which means firearms, like humans, must also be regulated. Heller grants us the right to legislate guns within court defined parameters.. By amplifying it to an extreme, replacing guns with bombs, it drives home the point.

You seriously have failed on this particular argument.

 

Of course they say 'do nothing' because they have no ideas. Or at least, I've not heard any.

Okay, what ideas can you propose that do not involve regulation of guns?

And, by the way,. Heller allows us to regulate guns (within court defined parameters, which will change if liberals ever gain a majority in the court), because guns amplify a human fault, so both need to be addressed, regulated.

 

Read the thread title and give it a little thought...lol

 

The 'motto' exists because in law, the guilty are deprived of their liberty.

But, if one receives mental health benefits from Social Security, one's liberty is not at stake.

Trump signed H.J. Res. 40, effectively ending the Social Security Administration's requirement to enter the names of people who receive mental health benefits into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This is the database used by the FBI to determine who is able to purchase firearms.

The question then becomes, should people receiving Soc Sec mental health benefits be allowed to own weapons?

Government-provided mental health benefits often require the condition to be severe enough to impact daily living or occupational functioning.

THat might not be enough to warrant being committed to an institution, but should someone severely depressed, such that they need psychotropic drugs, which are being paid for by Soc Security, be allowed to own firearms?

I say no. But, Trump said yes.

You see? That is PRECISELY why I would like the second amendment to be repealed--to make guns a privilege.

Not to take guns away from mentally healthy people, but to take it away from those who receive mental health benefits because owning a gun is a privilege, and in the interest of public safety, anyone receiving mental health benefits from Social Security should be disallowed from owning firearms.

However, as long as owning a gun is a right, the NRA, with a conservative court, on this point, will be probably be ruled favorably.

What is the result? Crazy people with guns.

Thanks a lot, republicans,.

 

And what truth might that be?

 

Only those involuntarily committed are not allowed to own guns.

If you had it your way, you would stigmatize anyone who went to even seek any sort of counseling for any sort of depression.

I'm sure that you're great intentions here have not considered the fact that people would not go and seek treatment because of the stigma that people like you would put on them for it

 

Start with this:

1. Encourage the American people to start carrying concealed handguns for protection by ending irrational gun control laws.
2. Transfer control of armed professional police to independent elected Sheriff's departments.
3. Reform the corrupt criminal justice system so that the right to fair jury trials and due process are actually guaranteed.
4. Find alternative punishments for all but the most serious violent convicted felons. Eliminate the mass incarceration industry.

 

Title of the thread....." How to ban guns without firing a single shot "

Let me guess now you're going to "explain" to me why that doesn't mean banning guns...

 

I understand, but there has to be some kind of threshold of mental stability, when surpassed, we take the guns away.

 

Uh, no.

Why?

Blanket accusations are never accurate.

There you have a point.

 

He qualified the title in the OP. I didn't see a total ban there.

so, your point is therefore moot.

 

The law applied even to those who simply were not good at managing their own money so required help in doing so. That is not a reason to deny them their RIGHT (not privilege) to own a gun for self defense. The law applied to people who were not at risk of doing anything illegal, and then demanded that they "appeal" the confiscation of their Right to own a gun.

You say that if one receives mental health benefits from SS then their liberty is not at stake. Except that it is. Their liberty to own a gun for self defense, or simply to hunt even. Liberty is not JUST about preventing people from going to jail/prison. It is about preventing the deprivation of Rights.

Also it is already illegal for people with mental issues to own a gun. However, in order to enforce that the State must prove that they should not have a gun. The law/rule whatever, made by Obama flipped that requirement upside down. And flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".

 

Guns do not amplify anything. The media does that. If it wasn't for the media you wouldn't even know about deaths caused by people using guns.

As far as ideas, I'm pretty sure I've given you those ideas also.... Yep, I have.

LINK: Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring? | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

I have spoken about the core issues many many times through out multiple threads. In the above linked thread you did acknowledge what I said and even agreed with it, but you still wanted to regulate innocent gun owners ability to own guns. That tells me that it isn't the crime that you're afraid of. Its the guns that you're afraid of.

 

So, explain the title of your thread: how did you come up with that? Is the alternative to your plan mean shots will be fired and by who?

 

But it's IMHO the most important point. The majority of armed crimes are committed with stolen or black market weapons. Guns that have already been used in a crime are particularly cheap on the black market.

Criminals never respect gun laws. They always find ways to arm themselves.
Therefore, there's no point in further restricting law-abiding citizen's gun ownership rights.

 

Can you substantiate any of this?

 

Semi automatic guns are the weapon of choice by mass shooters.

Could they kill as many with a knife?

I doubt it.

Guns amplify death by making it more efficient, easier, to kill,

All the media does is increase our awareness of it.

As for your link, I saw no specific proposals in that link, just areas to work on, which are not policy proposals.

See, it's easy to complain, but ideas are harder.

 

This is a lie.

This is another lie. Many mass killers spend months (or even YEARS) preparing.
The Smallest Minority: "This is Public. Please Share."

He does not care.

Blind squirrel, nut, something.

 

And there is.... Involuntary civil commitment