If they can't exist in society because of demonstrably violent mental illness, they should be committed. If they are known to the authorities and are being restricted due to potential violence, they are likely to be in a locked mental health facility anyway with any weapons in their possession taken into custody until l a determination is made that there is no danger of release and possession. I would not want to be the person who recommends that such a person at some point down the road have access to firearms or any other dangerous materials that can reasonably be regulated. In my view, once violently mentally ill, it's time to err on the side of caution post-release.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
I will completely agree with that, except that that system is VERY broken right now. Since we have decided to let people out of prison that the state KNOWS will re-offend, the least we can do is make them prohibited. In a perfect world, non-dangerous people wouldn't be stuck in prison, and the dangerous would stay in jail. Oh, and we'd have a secure border. Unfortunately, SOOO much is broken right now. Until they fix that, I have no problem with having people flagged and requiring an instant check, though I don't think they should keep any records after the fact.
Mike
As I stated before, if someone is violently mentally ill, why should they be released?
I'm sure I'll not find a direct quote from any of the forefathers explicitly stating their "absolutist" definition of shall not be infringed... then again, I'm not sure it's relevant. Referencing my above quotes it seems fairly obvious that the founding fathers believed free men have the right to carry a firearm and that these rights "shall not be infringed".
Additionally I'm not sure my stance on your second question is relevant... but I'll bite. I do not believe the constitution adequately addresses limitation to the second amendment; nor do I believe the federal government should be allowed to apply restrictions to a constitutional amendment that states "shall not be infringed".
There is a legitimate method to amend the Constitution and if our elected officials want to limit our rights as free men, they should do it via the proper channels... and not by making ridiculous interpretations of the Constitution.
They shouldn't. But for whatever reason, this is the reality of America. Flagging someone is a bandaid that can hopefully one-day be removed.
Mike
dixidawg
NES Member
Why does this come as a surprise or recent development to anyone?
Allowable regulations on the RKBA were stated in DC v Heller....
Like it or not... that's pretty much a settled ruling.
Never mind the line being drawn, my concern is where it's going to be drawn (the court never did decide on a level of scrutiny).
Forget about Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, etc.
All it would take is one more Obama nomination/appointment, and we would be really ****ed.
I don't think another, stacked court would overturn Heller... they would just draw the line so far to the left that the individual right to keep and bear arms just might as well be nonexistent.
Allowable regulations on the RKBA were stated in DC v Heller....
Like it or not... that's pretty much a settled ruling.
Never mind the line being drawn, my concern is where it's going to be drawn (the court never did decide on a level of scrutiny).
Forget about Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, etc.
All it would take is one more Obama nomination/appointment, and we would be really ****ed.
I don't think another, stacked court would overturn Heller... they would just draw the line so far to the left that the individual right to keep and bear arms just might as well be nonexistent.
Folks neither Barry or Romney is the answer.
Neither political party is to be trusted, they will sell your gun rights down the river for political expediency.
However, in the end people get the government that they deserve. They get the BS that they will settle for.
Gun ownership will never openly be outlawed it will simply be regulated out of existence.
smitty
Neither political party is to be trusted, they will sell your gun rights down the river for political expediency.
However, in the end people get the government that they deserve. They get the BS that they will settle for.
Gun ownership will never openly be outlawed it will simply be regulated out of existence.
smitty
Last edited:
dixidawg
NES Member
See post #25 above.
Agree 100% with more Obama appointees. While Mitt is far from ideal, there's at least a chance they wouldn't be as bad as an Obama appointment. That alone is reason enough to give him my vote.
GM-GUY
NES Member
+1 smitty
WHEN things go to hell we should all be man enough to look in the mirror and admit our complicity in it. We were all asleep far too long, too comfortable far too long, too fat far too long; that time is drawing to a close. I hope and pray that enough of 'us' are left to put it right.
WHEN things go to hell we should all be man enough to look in the mirror and admit our complicity in it. We were all asleep far too long, too comfortable far too long, too fat far too long; that time is drawing to a close. I hope and pray that enough of 'us' are left to put it right.
Sums it up well....
[video=youtube_share;kQ7XFvniWWE]http://youtu.be/kQ7XFvniWWE[/video]
[video=youtube_share;kQ7XFvniWWE]http://youtu.be/kQ7XFvniWWE[/video]
I watched the show this morning because Scalia was on. Once again the media spin on his words have been totally taken out of context. He was asking the question do we have the right to hand held missiles capable of shooting down aircraft? He said that the line needs to be defined keeping with the intent of our forefathers when they drafted the Second.
Of course not, back then they would either throw them in a dungeon or shoot them, solving the problem. Removal from society is the solution, one way or the other.
Last edited:
The intent of the Founders may be seen in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution - " Shall have the power to declare war , grant letters of Marque and Reprisal .... " - Individuals were expected to provide private warships.
In God We Trust
NES Member
I guess when they wrote the 2A, it seemed so obvious to them that they did not feel the need to elaborate beyond "shall not be infringed".
I think that anyone who is even slightly educated on the subject understands that the 2A was intended to prevent a tyrannical government from forming. In order for the people (us) to put down a tyrant and his supporters, we need to have the same weapons they do. You can't take on the Army with a single shot .22 or a snub nose .38
The right to protect liberty and uphold the other rights innumerated in the Bill of RIghts has somehow evolved into the right to hunt deer, target shoot and carry a concealed pistol for self defense. The reason the right to revolution has evolved into the right to self defense and venison chili is because any time it comes up, people and politicians on the pro gun side are afraid of sounding lke extremists by calling the 2A what it really is: the right to kill tyrants and their thugs.
I think that anyone who is even slightly educated on the subject understands that the 2A was intended to prevent a tyrannical government from forming. In order for the people (us) to put down a tyrant and his supporters, we need to have the same weapons they do. You can't take on the Army with a single shot .22 or a snub nose .38
The right to protect liberty and uphold the other rights innumerated in the Bill of RIghts has somehow evolved into the right to hunt deer, target shoot and carry a concealed pistol for self defense. The reason the right to revolution has evolved into the right to self defense and venison chili is because any time it comes up, people and politicians on the pro gun side are afraid of sounding lke extremists by calling the 2A what it really is: the right to kill tyrants and their thugs.
namedpipes
NES Member
Jefferson. Washington. Madison. Adams. Franklin. Probably a few others. Have you actually READ any of those documents?
As for you "obviously" not being a "Shall Infringer" because you CC 1) *I* don't know that you CC 2) I'm pretty sure most of Martha's crew DOES CC and 3) even if you aren't a shill, having a "CC" doesn't automatically credential you as a pro-gun advocate.
How about a Federal Bureau of Pre-Crime Investigation?
They could compile lists of likely offenders and then get court orders to strip them of their rights based on their probability of someday committing a crime.
Intend to have weapon systems that are on par with the standard small arms of our armed forces (as close as you can lawfully get).
Folks when our nation breaks down all the way then it will be our own police and soldiers that we will have to fear.
In order to adequately fight back you will need to be sufficiently armed.
smitty
Folks when our nation breaks down all the way then it will be our own police and soldiers that we will have to fear.
In order to adequately fight back you will need to be sufficiently armed.
smitty
namedpipes
NES Member
Can't do it. Mr. Nance told us the other day: We the people have no right to abolish a government that has become destructive to the natural rights of it's citizens.
Sorry to be the bearer. Don't shoot the messenger!
Now, if it WERE legal to do so, I agree with your sentiment.
MaverickNH
NES Member
The Shall Not Infringers are really just absolutists railing about a governmental/legal system that has rarely, if ever, found any right to be absolute. If someone can point to where Madison, Jefferson or any other Founding Father wrote or said otherwise, please do post it in context here for all to see.
Tell you why I like the "Shall not be Infriged'ers." The average is in the middle of the extremes. We end up with what the average Joe/Jane will accept.
We all know there are some (not many, but some) that say nobody other than police and military should ever be able to own, rent, hold or shoot a firearm, and all privately owned firearms should be siezed and destroyed.
So what is the other extreme? Anyone can own any firearm? That's not very extreme. Any criminal can already own any firearm. Us honest folk are just looking for some parity to the crooks.
So I'll support that 2ndA "extreme" so that the other anti-2ndA extreme is balanced out. Is that 2ndA extreme a bunch of "militia" who are ready to take on the gov't if necessary? Sure, as long as they don't jump the gun... Gotta keep an eye on the official Go Clock![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Maybe it's time to take off in boats to a new uncharted/uninhabited piece of land, setup our own settlements free of corruption and tyranny and make sure we draft a contract of some sort that lists things the newly formed settlers can NEVER do so that it remains free and non corrupt.
1st thing is to ensure anyone can say whatever they want and 2nd is make sure that everyone is always armed so that nobody feels they can 'control' or 'conquer' the rest and keeps things on an even playing field.
When we do this, we need to use VERY CLEAR AND PLAIN language so it won't be twisted and misconstrued later down the road when we're gone. Maybe something like, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That should be simple enough.
Good, now who's with me, and where we going?
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
1st thing is to ensure anyone can say whatever they want and 2nd is make sure that everyone is always armed so that nobody feels they can 'control' or 'conquer' the rest and keeps things on an even playing field.
When we do this, we need to use VERY CLEAR AND PLAIN language so it won't be twisted and misconstrued later down the road when we're gone. Maybe something like, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That should be simple enough.
Good, now who's with me, and where we going?
Come and take them.
- - - Updated - - -
Lets take over Cuba.
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe it's time to take off in boats to a new uncharted/uninhabited piece of land, setup our own settlements free of corruption and tyranny and make sure we draft a contract of some sort that lists things the newly formed settlers can NEVER do so that it remains free and non corrupt.
1st thing is to ensure anyone can say whatever they want and 2nd is make sure that everyone is always armed so that nobody feels they can 'control' or 'conquer' the rest and keeps things on an even playing field.
When we do this, we need to use VERY CLEAR AND PLAIN language so it won't be twisted and misconstrued later down the road when we're gone. Maybe something like, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That should be simple enough.
Good, now who's with me, and where we going?
Lets take over Cuba.
namedpipes
NES Member
They still run all the 1950's American cars they got before the embargo as daily drivers.
I'm in:
https://www.google.com/search?num=1....6.6.0.94.713.12.12.0...0.0...1ac.BngMt0nUuBk
You can google "hot cuban girls" for yourselves.
namedpipes
NES Member
Actually, I agree with you, but I have to say, their classic cars and babes are worth taking a look at. Maybe we could annex them as the 52nd (or it 58th?) state?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I've said it before and still believe: Even with all our warts, this is the greatest country on Earth and a better place to live than anywhere else I know of.
We need some political compound-W.
Similar threads
