Democrat Calls for Gun Confiscation

That is a very lame excuse not to enforce laws and not to look for better solution...

 

Of course it isn't, they didn't exist when the Constitution was written. Neither did the Internet, but do you think that means that free speech rights don't exist online?

Regardless, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of what firearms are and are not protected. Those that "are in common use for lawful purposes" are Constitutionally protected. Since semi-automatic weapons account for about 80% of the total firearm market, and the AR-15 platform is probably the most popular rifle, and since the overwhelming majority of these weapons have been used only for lawful purposes, the right to own them is inviolate.

If you don't like that, then Amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.

 

Are you an able bodied male between the age of 18 and 45? If so, then by federal law, you are in fact a member of the Militia of the United States.

 

Arresting the criminal IS enforcing the law.

 

The 2nd already is limited , why do people ignore this ?

 

Yes but saying that criminals don't obey laws - therefore there is no reason to create laws is just plain stupid. Look at DUI rates over last 30 years, they dropped 60% after new laws got enforcement....

 

Come and get them.

 

You still have "gun show" loophole....

 

Which is still regulated lol.... People need to educate them selves on the gun laws we currently have .

 

"We" ?

You are not flying an American flag and have no right to use the word "we."

 

The Constitution doesn't limit speech...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

."Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"....

Where "infringements" in speech have arisen, "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" for example, are efforts to PROTECT the natural rights of others by providing consequences for active and malicious incitement of a dangerous condition. (trampling, etc)

the mere act of owning gun...ANY gun... is passive, and creates no hazards to public safety....(but that hasn't stopped nanny statists from passing thousands of preemptive laws to regulate ownership.)

 

To be expected.However what is far more asinine and quite SNL is
Mayor Bloomberg actually forming a Group { Subcommittee }
called ... Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
I mean it's not far from being ... Mayors Against Murder.
I mean,you just can't make this stuff up.
We now officially have a La La Land section of this Country.

 

Mayor Bloomberg?

The guy who has men with guns protecting him every minute of the day?

 

That loophole is very easy to fix. You require every purchaser to have their background checked. It would work like this. You go to the show, you want to buy something, you sign a form with all of your credentials and that form gets sent to wherever it needs to get sent for the check. Upon approval, the seller sends your weapon to your local FFL for pickup. Pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) simple.

 

I prefer to live in a society without guns than one with guns. But the worst one is a society that is already full of guns and the government tries to regulate it. I think this is not a minority opinion.

 

More than twenty thousand regulations are already on the books. And if the liberty only applies to firearms of the times, then might it follow suit that religious liberty exclude all religions beyond those present at the place and moment? And a free press?....that'd kill anything running on electricity, satellites, TV, Cable, etc. We'd have to return to block presses and town criers.The musket reasoning defies logic. No, the current distribution of firearm liberty is about right. We don't have a problem with gun violence. We do have a problem with minority violence. That'd be the offspring of liberalism....the same liberalism that denies ownership, and who'd rather dim the sun for everyone than change what disgusts them about themselves.

 

How will the common man, senior citizens and women protect themselves than?



After everything all done and said, I kinda like the society that I'm living in now.

 

In America, a society without guns is known as prison.

 

The Democrats are doing their best to make things easy for the GOP in 2014.

 

Where only the wardens and guards are armed.....

no thanks....my owning guns is not a crime, and I WILL NOT be punished as if it were.

 

Protect from what? I think the founders nailed it saying guns protect free men from despots. It is not about protecting from bad guys on the street, as what the rifle association would want us to believe in.

Well it is a hard choice. Depends on what my preference is. If I care about maximising my own welfare in a currently free and capitalistic society I prefer one that has no guns as the chance of getting killed by a psychopath is significantly higher than a despot.

However if I am a rich guy who got to make plans for three generations I think my grandson would be safer in a society with guns. It takes times, and usually generations to erode liberty.

 

If so Repubs like McConnel and Boehner will do their best to make it harder for their party to win.

 

Yes and that is why drudge, the fat drug addict, fox and talk radio should be banned.

 

You are far more likely to die on the highway. Maybe it is to the wilderness you should go.

 

I don't know why pro-guns don't get this. I don't care whether I am killed by a psychopath or despot. My liberty is infringed. Most importantly I will be dead and it made no difference who killed me. So it is a matter of taking chances and making probability guesses.

And don't brag about how you could kill the planned psychopath if you were in the theatre you cyber warriors....