6.8 SPC Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Taken from this site:
http://libertyparkpress.com/read-an...two-views-on-gun-rights/#.V5CtMhI9JNk.twitter

Here's what Democrats say in their draft, buried back on page 25:
Gun Violence Prevention
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws, hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable, keep weapons of war-such as assault weapons-off our streets, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues."
Now check out the Republican Party Platform, and note that this appears on page 12, suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms is a far higher priority with the GOP:
"We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables Americans to exercise their God-given right of self-defense for the safety of their homes, their loved ones, and their communities.
"We salute the Republican Congress for defending the right to keep and bear arms by preventing the President from installing a new liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would eviscerate the Second Amendment's fundamental protections. Already, local officials in the nation's capital and elsewhere are defying the Court's decisions upholding an individual right to bear arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.
"We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the current Administration's illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, registration of ammunition, and restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call for a thorough investigation - by a new Republican administration - of the deadly "Fast and Furious" operation perpetrated by Department of Justice officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of guns to known violent criminals."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,811 Posts
The Liberty Park Press makes it sound the further back the item, the lower the priority it is. I do not think that for one moment that this is really that far back in the minds (if they had one) of the Libtards. I am shocked it was not one page one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,944 Posts
Interesting to see how plainly worded the Republicans are, as compared to the convoluted Democratic wording meant to obscure and confuse the root theme of complete gun control and elimination of the 2nd Amendment from Our Constitution.

It's up to US to make sure The Constitution stays intact and defend American Liberties.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
here's what it takes to amend an amendment, or repeal an amendment, i think it now takes 33 states now to convene if they want to amend/repeal, and 38 states to ratify without congress;

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
61 Posts
Correct me if i'm wrong.
Somethings cannot be changed in the Constitution. "Shall not be infringed." no matter how they try to twist the meaning (too many texts/notes on the matter from that time to be able to twist meanings.) no one will ever have the power to legally constitutionally change the 2nd, it would not be the United States of America anymore even if the name was kept the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Gotta love how the Democrats stance on gun violence prevention only addresses the guns and not the violence or criminals that use them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,977 Posts
If HRC were elected she could appoint 3 to 5 justices to the Supreme Court. America would become like Australia, only guns in the hands of criminals and LEO wouldn't have a chance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
61 Posts
If HRC were elected she could appoint 3 to 5 justices to the Supreme Court. America would become like Australia, only guns in the hands of criminals and LEO wouldn't have a chance.
I think something else would happen here if that happened, something that would be in the history books for sure. I'm not sure on the ending though, but history does repeat itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
If HRC were elected she could appoint 3 to 5 justices to the Supreme Court. America would become like Australia, only guns in the hands of criminals and LEO wouldn't have a chance.
Absolutely correct. And that is why, if for no other reason we have to vote for Trump, like him or not. Our country will be irreparably harmed if Lyin' Hillary is elected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,933 Posts
The Liberty Park Press makes it sound the further back the item, the lower the priority it is. I do not think that for one moment that this is really that far back in the minds (if they had one) of the Libtards. I am shocked it was not one page one.
It isn't necessarily a lower priority as it is to hide it from easy access for those that don't look very deep.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
It isn't necessarily a lower priority as it is to hide it from easy access for those that don't look very deep.
Exactly!! This is exactly how journalists are taught to write. The first half of the piece "shapes the idea in the readers mind" while the bottom half contains the factual information that they don't expect the casual reader to ever see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
here's what it takes to amend an amendment, or repeal an amendment, i think it now takes 33 states now to convene if they want to amend/repeal, and 38 states to ratify without congress;
While this is true, it really does not affect state governments who want to pass
whatever gun control they want. They simply get these laws passed knowing
liberal judges and the DOJ are on their side for gun control. The idea is
to get enough rulings on the books to treat the Second Amendment as privilege.
As more case law is upheld it becomes easier to pass more gun restrictions.
Without a SCOTUS and DOJ to back us up and strike these laws as unconstitutional,
this will continue to get worse before it gets better. Elections matter and this one in
November matters greatly.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,228 Posts
While this is true, it really does not affect state governments who want to pass
whatever gun control they want.
They simply get these laws passed knowing
liberal judges and the DOJ are on their side for gun control. The idea is
to get enough rulings on the books to treat the Second Amendment as privilege.
As more case law is upheld it becomes easier to pass more gun restrictions.
Without a SCOTUS and DOJ to back us up and strike these laws as unconstitutional,
this will continue to get worse before it gets better. Elections matter and this one in
November matters greatly.
This is not correct in my opinion. Any laws passed by the states concerning gun control are unconstitutional. They are in direct violation of the 2nd and 10th amendments which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Since the 2nd amendment expressly states "shall not be infringed" this is a power expressly granted to the people by the constitution and the states have nothing to say in the matter. It is a power enumerated to people through the Federal govt by the constitution and by the term "shall not be infringed" it is expressly prohibited by the constitution to the states. At the same time, neither does the federal government since again, the 2nd amendment states "shall not be infringed". It is even more sacrosanct than the 1st amendment rights which most states would never even attempt to overide with state laws. If there were no 2nd amendment then it would be left up to the states but since there is a 2nd amendment which relegates this power to the federal government, the states have nothing to say in the matter. If they do so it is unconstitutional. Abortion is just the opposite. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the power expressly to the federal govt to make that decision therefore it is the states right to decide. In my opinion, since it was not done through amendment, the NFA act of 1934 is unconstitutional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
906 Posts
This is not correct in my opinion. Any laws passed by the states concerning gun control are unconstitutional. They are in direct violation of the 2nd and 10th amendments which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Since the 2nd amendment expressly states "shall not be infringed" the states have no rights regarding gun control. It is a power enumerated to the Federal govt by the constitution and by the term "shall not be infringed" it is expressly prohibited by the constitution to the states. At the same time, neither does the federal government since again, the 2nd amendment states "shall not be infringed". It is even more sacrosanct than the 1st amendment rights which most states would never even attempt to overide with state laws. If there were no 2nd amendment then it would be left up to the states but since there is a 2nd amendment which relegates this power to the federal government, the states have nothing to say in the matter. If they do so it is unconstitutional. Abortion is just the opposite. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the power expressly to the federal govt to make that decision therefore it is the states right to decide. In my opinion, since it was not done through amendment, the NFA act of 1934 is unconstitutional.
While I don't disagree, the courts of the U.S. do. The common argument against the "Bill of Rights" at the time they were being debated was that they are not needed since the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the authority to legislate/govern/violate any of the enumerated rights anyway. I.e., how could the Federal government infringe upon our rights to bear arms since the government doesn't have the authority to do so anyway?

This isn't going to end well. I'm just hopeful it won't end for at least another few generations.

And the scary thing is, as bad as it has gotten, we are still far better off (regarding individual liberty) than any other country I can think of.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,228 Posts
While I don't disagree, the courts of the U.S. do. The common argument against the "Bill of Rights" at the time they were being debated was that they are not needed since the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the authority to legislate/govern/violate any of the enumerated rights anyway. I.e., how could the Federal government infringe upon our rights to bear arms since the government doesn't have the authority to do so anyway?

This isn't going to end well. I'm just hopeful it won't end for at least another few generations.

And the scary thing is, as bad as it has gotten, we are still far better off (regarding individual liberty) than any other country I can think of.
My main point is that it expressly forbids the states by the simple term "shall not be infringed". In other words, if you are a citizen of this country and allowed to walk free, as in not in prison, then you should have the right to carry openly or concealed anywhere you damn well please with no restrictions on what type firearms you can own. The government, either state or federal has nothing to say about it. Of course this is just my opinion and completely useless but I believe that is how the founding fathers intended it. All of this nonsense was created by liberal/progressive types as a (pretty poor) method of dealing with runaway crime in the 20s and 30s. Again, in 68 because of a few assasinations, the liberals jumped in where they had no rights and infringed upon the rights of the citizen. Instead of doing better police work, they always want to jump in a pass new laws which do nothing to solve the problem. The mere existence of FFLs is unconstitutional and does nothing to keep criminals from owning guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,874 Posts
The Liberty Park Press makes it sound the further back the item, the lower the priority it is. I do not think that for one moment that this is really that far back in the minds (if they had one) of the Libtards. I am shocked it was not one page one.
Why? Democrats may be a lot of things, but they are politically savvy. They have a high degree of street smarts, like a junk yard dog does. They know the gun issue, as passionate as they are against guns, is a political loser for them and has been for a long time. Even Bill Clinton admitted that he lost the Congress largely because of his fight with the NRA and the assault weapon ban. Obama has often voiced his angry frustration with his failures on gun control legislation, even after events such as Sandy Hook.

So, I wouldn't be too surprised about where it shows up in the DNC platform. It is buried for the good reason that they don't want to make it an issue because they know it would cost them votes for the presidency, and well as down ticket for the Senate, and the House.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,874 Posts
While this is true, it really does not affect state governments who want to pass
whatever gun control they want. They simply get these laws passed knowing
liberal judges and the DOJ are on their side for gun control. The idea is
to get enough rulings on the books to treat the Second Amendment as privilege.
As more case law is upheld it becomes easier to pass more gun restrictions.
Without a SCOTUS and DOJ to back us up and strike these laws as unconstitutional,
this will continue to get worse before it gets better. Elections matter and this one in
November matters greatly.
True, but even though it may take some years to accomplish, nearly every one of those state laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment get overturned. Along with the several USSC rulings over the last 10 years like the Heller and McDonald cases, there are dozens of cases that have reestablished the rule of law and prohibited state and local governments from denying our 2nd Amendment right. The Illinois concealed carry ruling is a case in point. The Federal courts literally forced the state to write and implement concealed carry here. We were the last state holdout. While we still have issues to be resolved, Illinois citizens have joined the ranks of other Americans in exercising their rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
I agree with everything you guys said but that is what is happening. Democratic
states are passing gun control while not even recognizing Heller and McDonald.
Heller states that gun ownership is an individual right and McDonald says that
right applies to states and cities. But the antigun crowd is just ignoring the
rulings. With no SCOTUS or DOJ to back those rulings up and liberal judges
on the federal levels - it could be a long wait until those states see any justice.

Listen to anti gun politicians talk. They refuse to acknowledge Heller as
settled law. It will be the first thing they go after if they can stack the
supreme court.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top