Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree32Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 3rd, 2017, 09:29 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I take it then you have no problem with what happened in Vegas. To you it's just an unfortunate "side effect" of the god given right to own as many weapons as you want.
What is to many?
guy39 is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 09:30 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
It was ONE PERSON with a SHIT LOAD OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION. Could one person with a knife kill 59 and wound over 500? Could one person with a pistol? Could one person with a car?

Furthermore could one person with any of those items have done it while barricaded in a hotel room at a distance of about 300 yards? You want a weapon to go hunting? Great. You want something for home defense? I'll back you 100%! You explain to the families of those killed why ONE MAN needs over 2 DOZEN rifles and THOUSANDS of rounds of ammunition.
So in order to exercise a right do you have to show a need first? Mister Libertarian? Hello?
guy39 is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 09:31 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
An intelligent law which would ban all semi-automatic rifles and make it a felony with a mandatory 10 year no parole sentence for owning one would greatly decrease the casualty numbers, just for one.
Would you like to google how many people are killed each year by rifles?
Never mind I did it for you

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s..._2010-2014.xls
Thanks from Sabcat
guy39 is offline  
Old October 4th, 2017, 06:39 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
So after the replies to the topic, the consensus is the same as it is after every mass shooting. There is nothing we can do. We just have to deal with it.

To any thinking person, consider where that leads to in the future. Especially the future of the second amendment itself.

Fortunately a Supreme Court Justice named Antonin Scalia did exactly that when he gave the majority opinion in the Heller v DC decision.

The average citizen has the right to have a gun to defend themself in the home.

It also gives the states the right to regulate the carrying of, and the types of weapons citizens can possess, and the authority to prohibit the private sales of firearms without background checks being performed.

It also gives the government the right to prohibit access to fully automatic weapons, and accessories such as silencers, and bump stocks.

The second amendment does not grant absolute right to unrestricted firearm use anymore than the first amendment allows you commit libel or slander another person.

It's now time to protect the second amendment by the states and federal government using the Heller decision to enact as much legislation, and put in place as much regulation as possible, to protect both the safety and rights of it's citizens.
There is nothing you can do, constitutionally, to alter the situation with respect to gun control. Then again, guns are only symptomatic of a more onerous problem - political jihadists and those who are on psychotropic drugs. You CAN do something about that.

Now, this is what I think about the Heller decision:

The Heller decision was an illegal move on the part of the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Let me take you through this one step at a time.

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..” Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court agreed in principle:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 )

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right. All the courts agree. The Cruikshank decision tells us a bit about that Right. It is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Common sense tells me that the Right predated the Constitution. If it is a Right and it's a Right not granted by the Constitution then it must, of necessity, be an unalienable Right... an extension of the Right to Life.

Although in the Miller decision in 1939, the United States Supreme Court began unconstitutionally opening the door for gun control, they acknowledged that the most protected weapons were those used by the militia. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Then along came the Heller decision:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200

Say what????? Okay, if some rights are limited, what are the rights that are unlimited? The Heller decision says most rights, not all rights... So, what rights do they think are unlimited and why? OR, did the United States Supreme Court over-step their boundaries?

17th-century Englishman John Locke, philosopher discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)


"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (187

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams, American statesman, political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

Throughout the history of this country, and up until recent times, the Right to keep and bear Arms has been unalienable (that is, above the law.) Recent court decisions that allow the government to restrict the right rise to the level of the federal government declaring war against its citizenry. As I've pointed out, we could reduce the numbers of people killed by firearms without gun control.

I can only tell you what our forefathers said relative to the power grab by the United States Supreme Court's power trip, legislating from the bench and claiming our Constitution is a "Living Document:"

"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams

We have a Right, a duty and a moral obligation to be adequately armed in accordance with our Second Amendment guarantee. If the courts and the law enforcement of this nation try to enforce unconstitutional laws it is YOUR OBLIGATION to defend Liberty and resist tyranny.

Today, millions of Americans are stocking up on weapons, parts, ammunition and magazines. There will be guns for the rest of my life in the hands of my fellow man. Whether you consider it "legal" or not, they will be available. For those who say they will not turn them in, then you better consider the moral obligation.

"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." Galatians 5 :1 (NAS
discollector is offline  
Old October 4th, 2017, 11:12 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Yesterday, before the verdict was in and the facts known, I stated this in post # 5:

"I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, but he is trying to stop Muslims from coming into the United States. And let's face it. ALL mass murderers who use a firearm or terroristic acts to do the dirty deed are either political jihadists OR they are people on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs.

All of your mass shooters fit one of those two categories. But, rather than to have a conversation about how to better regulate those people and to keep people on psychotropic drugs in check AND, most importantly, use drugs as the last option, not the first we will continue to have these emotion laden B.S. discussions about gun control
."


Then we come to today and what is in the news?

"Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets on June 21 and purchased the drug at a Walgreens store the same day it was prescribed, according to records from the Nevada Prescription Program obtained Tuesday by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

...Paddock was also prescribed 50 10-milligram tablets of diazepam by Winkler in 2016, the Nevada state monitoring report reveals. He filled that prescription the day it was written time at Evergreen Drugs in Henderson and this time it was for two tablets a day.

Diazepam can trigger “aggressive behavior,” “hallucinations” and “psychotic experiences,” which can be intensified by alcohol consumption, according to DrugAbuse.com.

“If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive,” Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center told Review-Journal. “It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. … It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people … they become aggressive instead of going to sleep
.”


Read more at Paddock prescribed drug linked to violent outbursts
Thanks from Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
argument, bastards, set, terms



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Progressives and redefining terms Sabcat Political Talk 62 March 8th, 2016 08:49 AM
His Terms Are Always Hostile Ones Truth Detector Current Events 37 January 24th, 2013 12:51 PM
Petition for limiting Congressional terms.. Kate Current Events 5 January 24th, 2013 06:32 AM
Gay Marriage Is A Contradiction Of Terms Little man Gay and Lesbian Rights 3 May 28th, 2011 06:22 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.