I Support the 2nd Amendment

[QueEx]

Just my opinion, but:

Every citizen of the United States has the right under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm -- and that right should be re-enforced, re-affirmed and "Protected" - - by a "National Registration Appreciation" law, the "NRA" under which:

1. There should be a background check on EVERY transfer (whether by sale, gift or inheritance) of a gun in the United States.
   
   
2. By February 1, 2014, every owner of a gun in these United States should be required to register that gun (each gun); and be issued a Certificate of Registration for that gun.
   
   
3. A Certificate of Registration can only be issued if the person (A) produces certified evidence that he/she has undergone a background check, or (b) submits to a background check prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Registration.
   
   
4. After February 1, 2014, it should be a felony punishable under Federal Law - to possess an unregistered gun.
   
   

​

 

[SPECTRE1]

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OVJMtCAX5fs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Constitution belongs in the garbage, based on the people that wrote the document and a new one created for modern times without the strong influence of slavery.

The Second Amendment was written in a manner to protect slave patrols in the South and not to fight a tyrannical government.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

No rights infringed.

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[yureeka9]

I support gun ownership because when one of these racist crackas from the NRA comes a callin, I wanna have something for him.

 

[cthomas0964]

Just my opinion, but:

Every citizen of the United States has the right under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm -- and that right should be re-enforced, re-affirmed and "Protected" - - by a "National Registration Appreciation" law, the "NRA" under which:

1. There should be a background check on EVERY transfer (whether by sale, gift or inheritance) of a gun in the United States. AGREE
   
   
2. By February 1, 2014, every owner of a gun in these United States should be required to register that gun (each gun); and be issued a Certificate of Registration for that gun. Technically when you purchase a gun from a dealer(legitimate) this info is on file for law enforcement.
   
   
3. A Certificate of Registration can only be issued if the person (A) produces certified evidence that he/she has undergone a background check, or (b) submits to a background check prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Registration. Agree but pretty much what I did to get a permit to carry.
   
   
4. After February 1, 2014, it should be a felony punishable under Federal Law - to possess an unregistered gun. Agree
   
   

​

In some ways I wouldn't be mad if other jurisdictions start using some of NYC tactics including search and seizures in high crime areas or areas with convicted felons.

You also left out mental illness but that can be another post.

 

[Deezz]

I support it too, but not with the ferver that a lot of these CAC do.

 

[QueEx]

Just my opinion, but:

Every citizen of the United States has the right under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm -- and that right should be re-enforced, re-affirmed and "Protected" - - by a "National Registration Appreciation" law, the "NRA" under which:

1. There should be a background check on EVERY transfer (whether by sale, gift or inheritance) of a gun in the United States. AGREE
   
   
2. By February 1, 2014, every owner of a gun in these United States should be required to register that gun (each gun); and be issued a Certificate of Registration for that gun. Technically when you purchase a gun from a dealer(legitimate) this info is on file for law enforcement.
   
   
3. A Certificate of Registration can only be issued if the person (A) produces certified evidence that he/she has undergone a background check, or (b) submits to a background check prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Registration. Agree but pretty much what I did to get a permit to carry.
   
   
4. After February 1, 2014, it should be a felony punishable under Federal Law - to possess an unregistered gun. Agree
   
   

​

If only you were the real Clarence Thomas


Are you !!!



Appreciate your comments.

In some ways I wouldn't be mad if other jurisdictions start using some of NYC tactics including search and seizures in high crime areas or areas with convicted felons.

Ahhh, maybe here's where we depart; maybe.

I am assuming here that you're referring to the Stop and Frisk tactics employed by the NYPD that many have complained about.

Stop and Frisk also referred to as a "Terry Stop" (arising out the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio) authorizes law enforcement to (1) Stop and briefly detain a person if there is "Reasonable Suspicion" that the person is involved in a crime; and (2) to Search that person for a weapon that might be a danger to the law enforcement officer or others. Of course, the key here is "Reasonable Suspicion" -- which requires that the officer must be able to point to "Specific and Articulable Facts" that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been or is about to be committed -- and then the person may be "frisked" = a pat-down of the outer garments for a weapon.

As I understand the New York complaints, NYPD has in many cases employed Stop and Frisk using "Racial Profilling" (an unequal, uneven and un-constitutional application of the law); and using the so-called "wide net" theory where police target a certain area and essentially stop and frisk damn near everyone in the area, regardless of any "Specific and Articulable Facts" regarding the individuals stopped and frisked.

I believe in the "Field of Dreams" -- "If you build it, they will come". That is, if you trample upon individual rights, if you ignore the constitution of ordinary citizens who happen to be the "Color of the Day" or "Live in the Neighborhood of the Day" and for virtually no other reason they are subjected to stop & frisks -- without reasonable suspicion -- then the house you build will attract the resentful, rebellious, and angry as residents. In which case, the government is responsible for creating the very thing it professes to prevent.

I said above "Maybe" we disagree here. I think, "Maybe Not". We're all frustrated by crime -- but I can no more be in favor of the deprivation of any other citizen's right than I am in favor of that citizen being in deprivation of mine. I believe here we agree.

You also left out mental illness but that can be another post.

Not really. I didn't post the list of things that if discovered through the background check would preclude one from obtaining the permit.



.

 

[thoughtone]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SO1iBHFrC4I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[QueEx]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SO1iBHFrC4I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LaPierre.

With background checks, before he was against them.

With them . . .

​

Before he was against them . . .

 

[QueEx]

Constitutional Myth:
The Second Amendment Allows
Citizens to Threaten Government​

​

The "right to bear arms" is not a right to nullify any
government measure a "sovereign citizen" finds irksome

​

In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized--for the first time in American history--the "right to bear arms" as a personal, individual right, permitting law-abiding citizens to possess handguns in their home for their personal protection. Two years later, it held that both state and federal governments must observe this newly discovered right.

Curiously enough, the far-right responded to these radical victories as if the sky had fallen. During hearings on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions direly warned that the two gun cases--Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago--were 5-4 decisions. "Our Second Amendment rights are hanging by a thread," he said. The idea that the rights of ordinary gun owners are in danger is a fallacy.

A second, and more pernicious, fallacy is embodied by this quotation from Thomas Jefferson, America's third president:

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Wait a minute, Epps! Who could argue with Jefferson? Well, not me, to be sure. But there's a problem with this quote, as there is with so much of the rhetoric about the Second Amendment.

It's false.

As far as scholars can tell, Jefferson never said it. Monticello.org[/i], the official website of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, says, "We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, 'When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,' or any of its listed variations." The quotation (which has also been misattributed to Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and The Federalist), actually was apparently said in 1914 by the eminent person-no-one's-ever-heard-of John Basil Barnhill, during a debate in St. Louis.

As bogus as the quote is the idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to create a citizenry able to intimidate the government, and that America would be a better place if government officials were to live in constant fear of gun violence. If good government actually came from a violent, armed population, then Afghanistan and Somalia would be the two best-governed places on earth. As we saw from the 2010 shootings in Tucson, Arizona, the consequences for democracy of guns in private hands, without reasonable regulation, can be dire--a society where a member of Congress cannot meet constituents without suffering traumatic brain injury, and where a federal judge cannot stop by a meeting on his way back from Mass without being shot dead.

But that image of a Mad Max republic lives on in the fringes of the national imagination. It is what authors Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson call "the insurrectionist idea," the notion that the Constitution enshrines an individual right to nullify laws an armed citizen objects to. Its most prominent recent expression came from Senate candidate Sharon Angle, who predicted that if she was unable to defeat Democratic Sen. Harry Reid at the ballot box (which she couldn't), citizens would turn to "Second Amendment remedies"--in essence, assassination. Rand Paul also likes to hint that the remedy for rejection of his libertarian policies may be hot lead. Deathandtaxesmag.com quotes him as saying, "Some citizens are holding out hope that the upcoming elections will better things. We'll wait and see. Lots of us believe that maybe that's an unreliable considering that the Fabian progressive socialists have been chipping at our foundations for well over 100 years. Regardless, the founders made sure we had Plan B: the Second Amendment."

The history and meaning of the Second Amendment are a murky subject. A fair reading of the entire text of the Constitution suggests that the most prominent concern of the its framers was protecting states' control of their militias. Under Article I § 8 of the Constitution, the states transferred to Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions" and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." This was one of the most radical features of the original Constitution; under the Articles of Confederation, states had complete control of their militias. Opponents of ratification suggested that the new federal government might proceed to disarm and dissolve the state militias and create instead a national standing army. The Second Amendment most clearly addresses that concern; and that has led a number of historians to suggest that the Amendment really has no relation to any personal right of individuals to "keep and bear arms."

History is rarely that clear, however, and the notion of personal gun possession as a right is also deeply rooted in American history. UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, author of the forthcoming Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, notes that since before the Amendment was proposed, many citizens have discussed the right to bear arms as a guarantee against tyranny as well as a feature of a federal system. Indeed, Winkler's reading of the history finds more support for this anti-tyranny idea than for the Supreme Court's current doctrine that the Second Amendment supports a right of personal self-defense. But the protection against tyranny was a long-term structural guarantee, not a privilege of individual nullification, he says. "I don't think there's any support for the idea that government officials should be afraid of being shot."

It would be odd indeed if the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had written an amendment designed to give individuals the right to liquidate the government they were setting up. In fact, having been through a revolution, they had few illusions about the virtues of violence. When they gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, the original Framers were very aware that armed bands of farmers in Massachusetts had revolted against the state government only a few months earlier. Washington, in particular, found the news of Daniel Shays's rebellion in that state so disturbing that it contributed to his decision to come out of retirement and help frame a new national charter to prevent such outbreaks.

At Philadelphia, Gouverneur Morrison of Pennsylvania warned the delegates that failure would precipitate new outbreaks of rebellion. "The scenes of horror attending civil commotion can not be described, and the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance," he said. "The stronger party will then make traitors of the weaker; and the gallows & halter will finish the work of the sword."

After becoming President, Washington himself led a national army into Western Pennsylvania to suppress a rebellion against the new federal tax on whiskey. (This is the only time in American history a President has served as Commander-in-Chief in the field.) In a subsequent message to Congress, he showed precious little sympathy for "Second Amendment remedies":

[T]o yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States, would be to violate the fundamental principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail. . . . ucceeding intelligence has tended to manifest the necessity of what has been done; it being now confessed by those who were not inclined to exaggerate the ill-conduct of the insurgents, that their malevolence was not pointed merely to a particular law; but that a spirit, inimical to all order, has actuated many of the offenders.

In 2011, there is abroad in the land "a spirit, inimical to all order," particularly if that order concerns federally guaranteed environmental protection, economic regulation, or civil rights. Voices from the far-right are trying to plant a parasitic meme in our Bill of Rights: that America is not a self-government republic, but a dark Hobbesian plane where each "sovereign citizen" chooses what laws to obey, and any census taker or federal law-enforcement agent had better beware. The long-term result of such a "right to bear arms" would be an ungovernable state of nature, where life, both civic and individual, would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

The Second Amendment now securely holds a right to personal self-defense against assault, but not against the obligations of citizenship. A right of self-defense, like the right of free speech, or the right to be secure against unreasonable searches, is subject to reasonable regulation. Common-sense concern with the consequences of legal rules, not chest-thumping about squirrel rifles and the Revolutionary War, will produce a system of laws that would recognize the nation's heritage of gun ownership, and allow reasonable regulations to protect us all from Somalia-style chaos.





​

SOURCE

 

[actinanass]

This is nice to know. Too bad that I don't believe you...

I really don't give a shit if you try to prove otherwise.

You support the second amendment in you're own corrupt way, and I'm ok with it. Be full of shit as much as you can. I'm sure on this board, you will have people to agree with you anyway.

BTW, please do me a favor, don't even respond to this. You will be wasting your time. Because I really don't care what you have to say to so call defend yourself. Great group think post.

 

[QueEx]

--

 

[thoughtone]

BTW, please do me a favor, don't even respond to this. You will be wasting your time. Because I really don't care what you have to say to so call defend yourself. Great group think post.

He doesn't care yet he took the effort to enter a thread and post.

 

[actinanass]

He doesn't care yet he took the effort to enter a thread and post.

I cared just enough to say that I don't care.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

In some ways I wouldn't be mad if other jurisdictions start using some of NYC tactics including search and seizures in high crime areas or areas with convicted felons.

You also left out mental illness but that can be another post.

I would. I don't want the police being able to stop me for the sole reason as I fit the profile.

 

[thoughtone]

I cared just enough to say that I don't care.

You cared enough to say that you cared that you didn't care, so you must have cared!

 

[actinanass]

I would. I don't want the police being able to stop me for the sole reason as I fit the profile.

That's your mayor tho...

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[mc2]

thats a logisitcal nightmare.

#1. There are more than 300 million guns in the USA and who is going to build and maintain this national database of gun users?

#2. Who is going to pay to perform the background checks?

You would have to create a new branch of government to run this system..


The reality is that there already are background checks performed on gun purchases. I had my background checked for everyone of my gun purchases and all of them were from GUN SHOWS!!!!

This so called "Guns how loop hole" is fwhat people call a private transaction.. The way its being described in the media you would think one could go to a gunshow and go to any table and buy a gun without a background check and thats not the case.. Most dealers at gunshows have an FFL license and require background checks for sales..

With this so called loophle, It would be the same as you selling a gun you own to someone you know... I think adding the government checks to private sales would be a mess.. Based on this new law I wouldn't be able to give my sister a gun to protect herself without going through a background check and being approved by the government.

 

[thoughtone]

thats a logisitcal nightmare.

#1. There are more than 300 million guns in the USA and who is going to build and maintain this national database of gun users?

#2. Who is going to pay to perform the background checks?

You would have to create a new branch of government to run this system..


The reality is that there already are background checks performed on gun purchases. I had my background checked for everyone of my gun purchases and all of them were from GUN SHOWS!!!!

This so called "Guns how loop hole" is fwhat people call a private transaction.. The way its being described in the media you would think one could go to a gunshow and go to any table and buy a gun without a background check and thats not the case.. Most dealers at gunshows have an FFL license and require background checks for sales..

With this so called loophle, It would be the same as you selling a gun you own to someone you know... I think adding the government checks to private sales would be a mess.. Based on this new law I wouldn't be able to give my sister a gun to protect herself without going through a background check and being approved by the government.

You must be kidding!

 

[mc2]

You must be kidding!

Im not kidding...

There is no way that the government will be able to create and maintain a database of 300 million guns and owners without having to create a new agency.

People will NOT do this for free and someone will have to pay the expenses to create and maintain this registry.

 

[thoughtone]

Im not kidding...

There is no way that the government will be able to create and maintain a database of 300 million guns and owners without having to create a new agency.

People will NOT do this for free and someone will have to pay the expenses to create and maintain this registry.

So the ATF cannot handle it?

 

[QueEx]

thats a logisitcal nightmare.

#1. There are more than 300 million guns in the USA and who is going to build and maintain this national database of gun users?

#2. Who is going to pay to perform the background checks?

Really ???

In 1996, there were 202.5 million "Personal Vehicles" (passenger cars, motorcycles and light trucks) on the road in the United States, according to the US Bureau of Transportation. In 1995 there were 198,022,288 such vehicles -- a yearly increase of approximately 4.2 million -- new registrations. Counting commercial vehicles, there were 210,236,393 million vehicles on the road in the United States in 1996, and increase of approximately 5 million over the previous year, 1995.

ALL of those vehicles are registered in one of the 50 states; and, post 911, many with the feds, as well. In addition to the new registrations each year, in most states each of those some 210 million vehicle registrations are renewed annually or semi-annually.

Who pays for the registrations? Who else, but those who should, the owners. Should they not ???

Logistical nightmare? Hardly. A bit of inconvenience, perhaps. But nightmare, no way.

Any more questions ???

 

[Lamarr]

In-fringe - Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Registration leads to confiscation, save that legalese BS.

2A shall not be INFRINGED. I know y'all don't believe in the Bill of Rights, (I see Bush's Patriot Act hasn't been repealed)

These politicians have not introduced anything that would've prevented Sandy Hook from happening!

 

[Lamarr]

In-fringe - Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Registration leads to confiscation, save that legalese BS.

2A shall not be INFRINGED. I know y'all don't believe in the Bill of Rights, (I see Bush's Patriot Act hasn't been repealed)

These politicians have not introduced anything that would've prevented Sandy Hook from happening!

 

[thoughtone]

In-fringe - Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Registration leads to confiscation, save that legalese BS.

2A shall not be INFRINGED. I know y'all don't believe in the Bill of Rights, (I see Bush's Patriot Act hasn't been repealed)

These politicians have not introduced anything that would've prevented Sandy Hook from happening!

The "drive-by poster".

 

[Lamarr]

The "drive-by poster".

The "Troll"

 

[thoughtone]

The "Troll"

Way before you "so called" got allegedly kicked off of Hannity's board!

 

[QueEx]

Registration leads to confiscation, save that legalese BS.

All cars in America have to be registered. Registration didn't lead to the confiscation of automobiles.

You've demonstrated in the past that you'll stick your head in the door and say anything that you think supports your point of view; even if its clear that it doesn't.

 

[Lamarr]

All cars in America have to be registered. Registration didn't lead to the confiscation of automobiles.

You've demonstrated in the past that you'll stick your head in the door and say anything that you think supports your point of view; even if its clear that it doesn't.

Car registration is a poor analogy simply because my right to own a firearm is protected by the Bill of Rights! Owning a car is nowhere to be found in that document.

Second, registration is clearly an infringement on that right.

Third, a registration does absolutely nothing to prevent the next 'Sandy Hook'

As far as the other dialog, I just hate responding on this cellphone keyboard.

 

[thoughtone]

Car registration is a poor analogy simply because my right to own a firearm is protected by the Bill of Rights! Owning a car is nowhere to be found in that document.

Second, registration is clearly an infringement on that right.

Third, a registration does absolutely nothing to prevent the next 'Sandy Hook'

As far as the other dialog, I just hate responding on this cellphone keyboard.

Your first amendment right to challenge an elected official is enshrined in the Bill of Rghts, but that doesn't mean you can physically threaten the president, as well has yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Registering of guns will not prevent all tragedies. Does that mean we should not have stop signs, since they will not prevent all automobile accidents?

 

[QueEx]

Second, registration is clearly an infringement on that right.

Says which Supreme Court ???

 

[QueEx]

Car registration is a poor analogy simply because my right to own a firearm is protected by the Bill of Rights! Owning a car is nowhere to be found in that document.

On the contrary, if universal registration of a thing that has no protection under the Constitution has not led to confiscation; then arguing that registration of a thing that IS Constitutionally protected will lead to confiscation is illogical -- especially when you proponents of this non-argument argument (registration leads to confiscation) have not once argued or shown that existing gun registration has led to the confiscation of a single weapon.

P.S.: Confiscation, A/K/A "They want to take our guns!" is typically the rhetoric of idiots and racists like the Ted Nugents of the world. Are you associating yourself with that kind of thought because you'll say anything to win, or, because those are your kind of people and thoughts ? ? ?​

 

[Lamarr]

Registering of guns will not prevent all tragedies.

It won't prevent any tragedy. What would it solve? Adam Lanza 'stole' the guns from his mother. Any 'sensible solutions' would contain theft prevention

On the contrary, if universal registration of a thing that has no protection under the Constitution has not led to confiscation; then arguing that registration of a thing that IS Constitutionally protected will lead to confiscation is illogical -- especially when you proponents of this non-argument argument (registration leads to confiscation) have not once argued or shown that existing gun registration has led to the confiscation of a single weapon.

More legalese. Registration only undermines the intent of 2A (as Democrats already know)

P.S.: Confiscation, A/K/A "They want to take our guns!" is typically the rhetoric of idiots and racists like the Ted Nugents of the world. Are you associating yourself with that kind of thought because you'll say anything to win, or, because those are your kind of people and thoughts ? ? ?​

low blow Que but I'll address your attack, if I'm banned I'll accept it! I was a victim of a violent crime, Ted Nugent nor the NRA tried to kill me. Another black man did, let me take that back, another nigga tried to stretch me out. From that day forth, I promised myself & my family they would never be in that position again.

And I'm not the type to hide under the table & call 911