You'll accept living under law. If you break the law, you'll be arrested, indicted and tried. If found guilty, by a jury of your peers, you'll be punished by society accordingly. If the person who murdered 10 people in Boulder had no access to a gun, the first person on the scene at the Boulder Grocery Store may have been able to prevent deaths.
Hmm.. Shouldn't this be you telling this to yourself in the mirror? We have Heller, do you suppose that suddenly your wrongheaded theory still stands up? It is kinda laughable at this point. The synthesis of this argument is, LA doesn't like and fears others with guns that his allegiance to the democratic party doesn't enforce on his behalf. And because others he doesn't like, or fears have guns, he wants to ban everyone he doesn't like, and fears from having them because, gasp, they might challenge the political policies and tyranny LA wants and needs. The right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed. The wording is clear, concise, and still LA cannot tolerate the right of the people to be able to overcome his authoritarianism....
The thing about this is theory is that the founders understood that law could be corrupted into tyranny. Which is why the carved out the inalienable rights of citizens/individuals in contradiction to your theory. Why not ask he more important question about the Boulder shooter. Why didn't the FBI more closely track him? Monitor his movement, purchase of a firearm? His rhetoric on line surely qualified him for scrutiny. Do you suppose that since Biden got into office, they just shrugged in the hope that said massacre was imminent and Joe could use the example to implement his form of tyranny you support here?
I do live under the law. Further infringements on my rights will not be permitted however. obviously there is no way to prevent access to guns. Just like there is no way to prevent access to narcotics.
I believe no such fallacy. The amendment is in crystal clear English, as affirmed by the supreme court. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms is protected. Sorry.
There are no "inalienable rights." Anything in the Constitution may be changed, including the Bill of Rights, with sufficient votes. The "inalienable rights" part is in the Declaration of Independence and was an appeal to higher ideals than the existing authorities. That's what revolutionists do. Lenin and Mao did the same.
To demand the "perfect" is to ignore and deny the "good." No law will eliminate the crime it is designed to prevent. It may, however, substantially reduce the occurrence of such crimes.
Hmm. Well, we know which side of the authoritarian state you live on. When the authors of the declaration of independence uttered, "we find these truths to be self evident", they were establishing those natural rights, inalienable rights and declaring that this nation was different, and that the natural rights of free peoples will not be infringed. Flowing directly into the constitution of the nation. Given your theory, self indictment is possible. No limit to the power of government to search or seize your property of person, no free speech, no free press, no religious freedom of conscience, government can produce any or all horrible punishment is, in your mind possible. Yours is the stance of all powerful, all abusive government of and for itself. The declaration wasn't an appeal, it was a political severing of the acceptance of tyranny. That you would characterize it in any other way assume, in your mind, that you must ask permission from government, and not government in part of the people. And no, what Lenin and Mao did was wrest the rights of their people from them. Use their power of force to enslave their people. And here you are, failed.
no it isn't. I and tens of millions of others simply will not permit further ingringements on our rights because it makes you feel good. The further restrictions are not only unconstitutional, but they are also useless in achieving the goals you are intending with them. and we know that none of the restrictions you are proposing will reduce the occurrence.
Yes. We have a judgement wrongly decided by 5 conservatives. Even so, as I've noted, an extremist like Scalia couldn't ignore completely the government's right to regulate firearm possession. The number of deaths he and the other members of the majority are responsible for is staggering.
Hmm.. So if the discussion was Roe, would you agree that it should be overturned as well? I mean, your standard is simply 5 wrongheaded opinions, so..... You seem entirely willing to accept that if your political standard is simple disagreement, that everything is on the table. You might want to think about long term consequences to your temper tantrum like argumentation.
What I understand that you do not is cases are decided due to the political philosophy of the sitting majority on the court, not necessarily the intentions of the Founders.
Hmm.. I understand perfectly well that liberal justices have legislated from the bench for over a century now. That you won't answer the question about where we find the right to infanticide in the intent of the founders is pretty scary. And when you refer to the law as the art of how you can use government to control the people instead of being the mechanism through which the people are protected, well, that's equally as scary a notion. Why do you insist on your tyranny these days?
If the murderer didn't have access to a gun, there wouldn't have been any deaths regardless of who were to show up first, whatever than means.
We live in a democratic republic, in which "representative government" is the means by which we implement the social contract. The people (meaning the electorate) may change that contract by vote, in this case meaning amend the contract (or dissolve it altogether). When Jefferson wrote those words they were meant in comparison to the rights of Englishmen of the day. They excluded women, children and slaves, one of whom (who fell into all three categories) he subsequently abused. And, the "Declaration" was a day late and a dollar short. The colonies had already been declared to be in rebellion. The revolution had already begun. Jefferson was writing a justification for acts already taken and all revolutionists "appeal" to a "higher power." Lenin and Mao, chose the socio-economic philosophy of Marxism. Jefferson chose the ideals of the Enlightenment. Maybe you need to look-up the dictionary definition of the word "revolution?" As in, it means coming full circle. The American Revolution came full circle with the U.S. Constitution. Oh yeah, the "inalienable rights," per Jefferson, were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," not the right "to keep and bear arms." That right is the Second Amendment, which in itself may be amended or abolished with sufficient support of the people (the electorate).
If you have the votes. IMO, the majority of us are getting tired of trying to walk a line for the benefit of "gun nuts." You don't seem to get it. Your "rights" exist at the sufferance of the majority. The amendment process allows for a super majority to change ANYTHING in the U.S. Constitution. IF you want to keep the second amendment, I suggest you start coming up with effective solutions to mass shootings.
Hmm.. Cause..... effect? You call it legislation when conservatives finally overcome what liberals have done. That's F'in rich. When democrats insist that folks don't actually have rights, you folks are in trouble.
Presumably, if his intent were strong enough, he could have chosen another weapon, such as a knife. The first policeman on the scene (who was killed) or an armed security guard could have more effectively intervened.
You haven't denied that you would endorse the idea that every freedom we enjoy, given a sufficient majority could eliminate the rights of the people. Don't you find that the slightest bit scary? Perhaps you should examine why you believe this. Perhaps it's because your indoctrination into the communal design theory you advocate has overrun your common sense? Hard to guess. What I can tell you by your continued reference to the "success" of Marxism is that you simply cannot keep from hearing for a world where there are no rights, except for the government to enforce your tyranny. And neither Lenin or Mao would agree with you that somehow, pristine individual determination is possible, which is why they effectively used the barrel of lots of guns to enforce their subjugation of their own peoples in support of their vision. And since you seem to be now attacking the constitution, you seem to be making a public declaration of your willingness to wage what? war? against it? The fact that you cannot understand that life absent liberty is the purpose of our union, that's pretty F'in scary dude. When you have no liberty because you take it away from the people, how is there a possibility to be free, or happy? Your logic has the look of swiss cheese for the number of holes in it. I feel true regret that you've adopted this facile and fragile need for government to dictate to you to make you happy. The good news is that folks can see it for what it is. If you wish to pursue this mindless life, live in China. You might find your comfort there.
Arm the people so they can return fire. Make the shooting fish in a barrel a thing of the past, watch the cowards slink back into the dark. If one cannot count on police to protect the people and there cannot be an expectation in the law that they will, then what? Why do you wish to see folks continue to be victimized as you actively work to remove their ability to defend themselves?
