Against murder: Action against another depriving them of their rights. Assault: See above. Possession of a firearm: NO action against another, simply a law making it not legally possible to sell to the restricted class or to sell the restricted class (former :by felons; latter: "assault weapons") intended to make it more difficult to obtain the item in question and to make it less likely that the crimes thought to stem from it to occur. Possession of marijauana: No action against another, simply a law making it not legally possible to sell the restricted item, intended to make it more difficult to obtain and for the crimes thought to stem from it therefore less likely to occur. So is the bastardized expansion of the commerce clause that made the brady bill "constitutional" that makes the hughes amendment "constitutional" that makes the NFA "constitutional" (a matter of settled law.) What exactly is your point there? My point is the exception you cite 1) disregards half the value of due process, the substantive portion and 2) allows the government to do essentially anything to you, which it of course cannot do something we all know. For instance: It cannot remove the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment or the 6th amendment right to counsel with this clause. Why is that? Assuming they had their procedural due process, what is the difference between that and RKBA? Both individual enumerated rights, yes? Both given procedural due process? Why can't the 1st two be taken and the 3rd can? They should indeed. After release there is no constitutional excuse for keeping their rights from them. If they are so dangerous, don't release them change the statutes to make such dangerous crimes lifetime offenses.
The problem, as I see it, is that laws are passed to stop the bad guys. Laws are not enacted to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, many laws have a negative effect on law abiding citizens, and on law abiding business people when laws are enacted in the business sector. What to do?
There is a vast difference between no NEW laws and no laws at all. You stated both and contradicted yourself yes there is a clear and distinct difference that is how english works. try a school
That's better, but not quite there. We prescribe meth, you know that right? Dexadrine. IT can be controlled though that is admittedly rare.. similar things can be said of alcohol especially if you want to talk harm to society. Don't make me break out the stats dude, you know alcohol causes a generous portion of societal harm. More than that, there is no cause to punish someone when they have not actively caused harm to another by violating their rights. As stated before : Drugs as aggravating factor? O sure, of course. Simple possession? Not so much.
It is illegal for a felon to posses a firearm, or to buy one. How does this law make it more difficult for him to do so? On its own? It doesn't. Its not deigned to. Its only there to punish people who do. Same for MJ. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept the explanation I gave you as sound. How can felons have their right removed? Due procees. If you do not have the right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd doesn't apply to you.
The people who pass these laws know the laws will not stop the bad guys, and thus, the law restricts the right for no good purpose. And yet, they pass and support the law. Why?
Illegal to BUY one. How does that make it more difficult? Most sellers won't sell to him. Some will, breaking the law. Those that do will be fewer than those that would sell to him in absence of the law. Same for MJ: Outlawing the legal market makes it markedly more difficult to obtain. Compare to alcohol: I could walk down the street to buy alcohol RIGHT NOW. Why I'd have to locate a black market dealer to buy weed and that could take... at least an hour. Still more difficult. Its not particularly effective, but it still puts up a hurdle making it more difficult to obtain. Face it, your earlier reasoning simply isn't logically sound. Its not sound, just as that expansion of the commerce clause is not sound. I am required to accept nothing. So wait... your reasoning is the RKBA which slall not be infringed and is an individual right, can be infringed upon permanently by due process of law and that means the RKBA which shall not be infringed can be infringed upon? Is that what you're saying sparky? Do I need to point out the inconsistency or do you see it?
I wonder how those men's shoulders are doing? I once owned a pre 1964 Winchester Model 70 Featherweight @30.06 and loaded my own ammo. That rifle kicked my cousins son on his butt one day. Fact is, my cousin stole the rifle. He died around the 1980s I think. When he stole from me, I broke all contact with him. I bought the rifle around 1960 not knowing it was to become a classic. I located one today for $2,300. http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=winchester+model+70+pre+64
Under just the law in question, how do they know it is illegal to sell to him? They don't If the police find out he has a gun, he can be arrested and convicted; the law, in and of itself does not make it harder for him to access a gun. Then you must accept the fact your complaints go unheard. You aren't paying attention. The 2nd protects those who have the right. Not everyone has the right, and so not everyone is protected. Once the right to arms is removed, the 2nd no longer plays a role. The RKBA can be removed through due process.
No, he was correct. It is illegal for a felon to possess one by any means. Even being in the same house with a legal gun owner is problematic. All rights, including your own life, can be "infringed" on by due process.
OK, maybe some. Those that actually pass the laws and the special interests groups that support them? They know better.
Well of course, but alcohol is also widely available and I'm guessing a lot more people consume alcohol than meth. And while there are some who are irresponsible with alcohol, there really is no responsible use for meth, other than two cases: major adhd and narcolepsy.
Consider: A right to privacy exists, and it exists against the states. Though I grant you, at least the states actually have a police power whereas the feds do not.
NYC and Chicago (as well as San Francisco and Los Angeles) are a mess and crime is unabated there even with their absurd extremist anti gun laws. There's really no logic to the mentality of anti gun legislation. Morons like Diane Feinstein and Jerry Brown love it however. It sells. That's why they love it.
This law does not exist in a vacuum, don't be obtuse. It exists alongside the FFL scheme and the checks required thereby through NICS. Also anyone can google a name these days, I do so if I sell in the furtherance of my hobby with the name on the license I ask to be shown so I can know I'm selling to an in state resident. If they pop with a mug shot on google its pretty obvious what's going on, or the first few entries are for sherrifs depts. No **** happened to me, its why I still haven't sold my Jericho. They certainly do not, argument is a spectator sport chief. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. SO you ARE saying that? My god man look at the pretzel you've twisted yourself into. Constitutional rights as understood in the text and not by some jagoff in a robe may only be suspended while incarcerated after incarceration there is no constitutional justification for infringing on their rights. I notice you've never commented on right to counsel or against cruel and unusual punishment and why those can't be removed by due process but RKBA can be. Gosh I wonder why?
Yes there is and you know there is and you are simply lying like a childish brat. You ARE proven wrong
That's the statute sure. But that's not what we're talking about now is it? Consider: right to life may only be infringed upon in very particular sorts of cases. Infringement of liberty occurs during incarceration, yes, and only after due process, yes, but 1) there is no open ended mechanism to make them second class citizens outlined in the constitution, especially post 14th amendment and 2) all liberties cannot be infringed (speech, counsel, religion, against cruel and unusual punishment etc ) only those necessary to enforce incarceration and then only for the period specified (you can't just bust down a felons door now can you? Why not? ). It is abhorrent to liberty that we allow these abuses, just as it is abhorrent that we allow the NFA.
Anyone who wants to be reasonably safe from crime needs to take measures to protect themselves. This has always been true, especially in the USA where the land has always been extensive and it has never been possible to infiltrate the countryside with police such as the British have been able to do with their island and their own crowded cities. And even in the British case where guns have been suppressed there have always been knife crimes and knife culture to take the place of guns for committing crimes. So in the case of England you need to carry your own knife and be able to wield it effectively to be reasonably safe from crime. In the USA you need your own firearm. But even being armed, whether with a gun or a knife, you still need to take additional steps, such as training, practice, mind set, and awareness. Even with your own gun or knife you can still become outnumbered and/or outgunned. There is no silver bullet. Not legislation (which is ludicrous, actually) nor guns nor knives or any combination of both. I like to carry my jack knife clipped inside my right pocket for quick deployment in a very close quarters situation and/or within a crowded facility. Within arms reach and especially when crowds are around, a knife is a more certain and reliable defense weapon. But you need to train on how to quickly draw and deploy your knife and slam the blade of it into the opponent's face, eyes, and neck. A knife is a slow kill weapon. I like to carry my 45ACP concealed on my right hip. Concealment protects the firearm from prying eyes. I am the only one who knows it is there. And drawing from concealment only takes about 1/4th to 1/2 second more than from open carry. But the law and politics of drawing a firearm are complicated. If someone makes an overt threat to you, you should un-conceal your firearm and put your hand firmly upon it, but not draw -- not yet. From this point on it all depends on what the other person does. If they back off you can then back away. You should leave the premises rather than stay there and give them another chance to assault. If they go for a weapon then you must draw yours. Once I do so, I like to keep the muzzle pointed upwards so it is obviously not pointed at anyone. If they point the muzzle of a gun or the tip of a knife at you, then you must shoot them several times. You may have to move first, before you shoot, if there are people behind them. You should always take cover first if you can before you start shooting. It's complicated. The gun is not a magical device. It is only a tool. You are the weapon. Your mind. Your mind must be alert and your body must be trained and practiced.
You either have a gun and/or knife with you or you don't. If you don't you are going to die if and when a criminal assaults you. That's all or none.
And you suppose that droves of persons would go out and consume meth were it legalized? Why do you suppose this? Who do you know that says "man I'd smoke a ton of meth if it were legal. Shoot it up through my main vein even.... too bad its a felony or I'd be all over it"? No one? Why imagine that! Those that use now are the ones that would use then. Its just that the money wouldn't be going to the black market and the product would at least be of known purity. You wouldn't have gangbangers fighting over distribution either. Prohibition causes more harm, see Prohibition of alcohol. We give it fighter pilots and air crews sometimes too. You missed that one. We give out regular amphetamine as well, to 6 yr olds (hi there, I was prescribed ritalin at that age. I don't particularly like it myself. Hyperfocus isn't better than multi focus in my opinion) and its used by a huge portion of college students both undergrad and grad (I wandered outside during a break in the bar exam. O the stories I heard of what stimulants random strangers were on. None of them murdered anyone) though not prescribed most of them. Its much more usable than you'd think, and far more prevalent too. Especially in a pure pill form rather than shards those trashy people smoke or shoot. The point being that people are far more medicated around you than I think you account for. And they're not rioting in the streets or burning the place down or killing people for dope.
