Should Americans surrender to permissive firearm laws and increased mass shootings?

Do you recognize that there are conflicting Constitutional rights?

 

No

 

Stripping the right to self defense from we the people is extreme.

 

So, the Holocaust wasn't real. Gotcha. The Hamas attack didn't really happen.

 

Name one.

 

Which hoplophobes never do.

 

That reveals your absolutist view.

No Constitutional right is absolute.

[P]eople inevitably come into conflict exercising different aspects of their rights. For example, the 1st amendment says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Someone who runs a sound truck around a residential neighborhood at 3am extolling the candidate of their choice would be exercising their right of free speech but it would be a significant negative impact on all the folks in that neighborhood trying to sleep. Governments and the courts have to balance the free speech rights of the person running the sound truck versus the rights of other citizens to go about their lives.

[https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/81686/why-are-constitutional-rights-not-absolute]

Not Even 2nd Amendment Rights Are Absolute.
[https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/deta...-lets-talk-about-keeping-guns-from-the-insane]​

​

 

what's your solution to rape?

 

it means he doesn't support the concept of constitutional rights essentially

 

those who don't understand criminals think that they won't harm disarmed citizens
they also pretend that gun bans will disarm the criminals who already ignore current gun bans

 

I wrote an essay long ago that I won't cite for obvious reasons. But I will give the cliff notes here. IT was based on research I had done as a prosecutor and my constant interactions with police and federal law enforcement agencies. I remember a retired highly decorated police officer whose last several years at a major police department was as the firearms instructor. He noted he had to give waivers to a former chief and a couple of his flunkies because they couldn't pass-what was a fairly tough firearms qualification course. The former chief was a big gun controller. He noted that he believed that the chief was anti gun for several reasons-brown nosing the anti gun mayor he served under but also, those who were competent with firearms reminded him of his failures. He also seemed to project his incompetence onto everyone else-figuring if he couldn't handle a handgun properly, no one else could and thus they ought to be restricted from carrying firearms. My essay dealt more with the fact that independent confident citizens who have accepted the potential consequence of having to defend themselves project an aura that is disturbing to cowards. When a man or woman projects that they are willing to make their own safety a personal responsibility -that statement accentuates the feelings of timidity and failure among those who won't. Gun bans or gun restrictions are often a shield these cowards use to try to reduce their own feelings of inadequacy

 

I really doubt criminals and terrorists give a thought to our protection.

 

so you are admitting that firearms are better for defending important people than those other weapons? You sort of destroyed your own argument about there are other things useful for self defense. If you want to limit yourself to less effective weapons so be it=-but don't tell the rest of us that we should handicap ourselves

 

criminals are mainly afraid of other criminals or armed citizens-if they really feared the government, they wouldn't be mopes. I recall (and I have heard this from other prosecutors) watching one of my colleagues interrogate a drug dealer who was busted with a -if I recall =a MAC 10 style SMG which was going to get him a bunch more years added on to the coke trafficking bust. The mope noted that if "we" (the feds) caught him with a gun, he got more years in the joint-if the rival gang caught him without a piece, he got a pine box in the ground

 

I find it quite remarkable anyone would actually insist that Constitutional rights are absolute.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights - Constitutional Accountability Center
​

... Scalia himself said that Second Amendment protections could apply only to weapons “in common use at the time.” Chris Wallace asked Scalia in 2012 about semiautomatic weapons and extended magazines, and he said: “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”​

 

And that exception is due process, and has been fully set out in the courts. It is a felony conviction. The old saw about yelling fire in a crowded theater is pretty much obvious bunkum, for you most certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater if you so choose. However the minute you do you become legally liable for any harm that results from your action. The problem with hoplophobes is the automatic assumption of guilt on the part of everyone who owns a gun. That is not only breath takingly totalitarian, but amounts to an a priori restraint of the sort generally proscribed by the constitution.

 

You may assume "guilt on the part of everyone whom owns a gun."

I do not.

Requiring that a driver of an automobile on public roads show competence, be licensed, register his vehicle, and conform to rules of the road in no way assumes that every driver is automatically guilty of illegal driving.

Do laws that restrict firearm ownership exist? Of course. Are they unconstitutional? Obviously not.

 

you keep saying that without referencing the context and the cases that came after it. You seem to think governmental power is unlimited

 

And this is exactly what I don't understand. We have laws regulating many things that can be harmful - so why is it such an extreme thing to want to build safety laws into gun ownership?

 

tell us what is the limit of governmental power concerning firearms and what part of the second amendment's negative restriction on the federal government is "limited"

 

Sure, they fear rival gangs as well as the government. They are not concerned about regular citizens since citizens ignore them, while cops and other gangs hunt them.

 

SAFETY laws is the new code word that the anti gun left has adopted over the last few years to try to make laws that ONLY restrict what legal gun owners can do, more palatable. Every improper thing one can do with a firearm is already subject to prison sentences, fines or civil punitive damages.

 

you are claiming criminals are not concerned about ordinary citizens being armed? that flies in the face of numerous polls and interviews of home invaders, armed robbers etc

 

Government power is not unlimited, just as no constitutional right is unlimited.

Is the government embowered to respect the will of the People when it does not violate the Constitution? That is the nature of democratic self-governance.

​