I saw a post on facebook pointing out the hypocrisy of how people are so adamant against regulations on guns but they want strict regulations on what bathroom you use, vaginas in general, and gay marriage. There are plenty of gun owners that want both to be deregulated and I think I have an idea to tether the two together to deregulate. 1. Tie marriage licenses in with concealed carry license, assault weapon bans, and pre-approved weapons lists. If you travel you will find your marriage invalid in certain places based on concealed carry reciprocity laws. For example Oregon does not honor a carry permit for another state so any time you are on Oregon soil whether its to live or just to visit you need an Oregon marriage license otherwise your marriage is invalid. Right now a Utah license is the one to get because its valid in a lot of places. Arizona on the other hand doesnt care about your license. You two are together? Thats good enough for them. Not all marriages are equal though. In order to qualify for a gay or transgender marriage you have to live in a state where AWBs and pre-approved lists do not exist. California has both so you cant have a gay marriage there. Same for Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and DC. You can still have a heterosexual marriage if you want. 2. Tie in transgenders with the National Firearms Act. A rifle or shotgun with too short of a barrel, pistols with certain features, sound suppressors, and other features are restricted under the NFA. A woman that grows any facial hair must register as a transgender. An overweight male with breasts too large must register as a transgender. You must register as a transgender, pay a special fee, and have your case reviewed by a government agency for your status to be approved and registered through your social security number. This registration is required before taking hormone therapy or getting a sex change operation. Since transgenders are a special status an additional transfer fee is required for a transgender marriage. And the only way to deregulate one side is to deregulate both.
For the record, I am for Equal Civil Rights for all, LGBT Rights, Marriage etc.... it is not for Government to restrict. We already have the Second Amendment, "The Right of The People to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." It is NOT a matter of De-Regulating, it is a matter of removing Unconstitutional Infringements or Restrictions on Our Rights, such as the NFA of 1939, GCA of 1968, The 1986 ban on manufacture of Civilian transferable Machine Guns etc..
Offer of compromise: They want universal background checks. For that, they must pass 50+ state shall-issue CCW w/ 50+ sate reciprocity, to include DC and the US external possessions; CCW holders exempt from background checks once they produce their permit. Constitutionally, this must be done at the state level, and it must be complete to trigger the federal UBC requirement.
"The Right of The People to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." That's not what the second amendment says. There is no capitalized statement to that effect. Neither is the NOT capitalized and you omit half of it. Where do you get off desecrating the constitution. This is the second amendment.......get it right next time or don't pretend you know what it says. >A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.<
universal CCW is fine as long as there are universal requirements. fingerprint background check & armed attack safety/training course.
It does not matter. The supreme court has decided that the right to bear arms is an individual right unrelated to whatever incorrect definition gun banners place on the word "militia".
Got to admire the irony and hypocrisy in the above ... "The supreme court" also decided that abortion is an individual right ... but of course you only cite SCOTUS when it suits you.
The 2nd Amendment is a part of the Constitution, the words "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the Constitution. Abortion is not, neither directly nor indirectly, Roe is a political extrapolation of the right to privacy which is itself an extrapolation from the 4th Amendment. Learn the US Constitution before posting.
I suggest you follow your own advice and learn the Constitution. .. fact of the matter is that both decisions were made by SCOTUS based on interpretation, in case of the 2nd amendment it was that militia did not exclude the individual's right to bear arms and in the case of abortion that it was covered under the 14th's right to privacy ergo both were court made determinations based on interpretation. ... and still your comment shows the irony and your hypocrisy
Just like to add that your cherry picking of the 2nd Amendment in order to attempt to try and validate your comment fails. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed and was not finally determined to mean that an individual has the right to "possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008 ) - Opinion of the Court, Part II-A-2. - and was an interpretation of what "well regulated militia" meant, again the interpretation was "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." As far as abortion is concerned SCOTUS determined that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy" and that "this right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." .. the precedent for this interpretation had already been set in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) when contraception laws were struck down, the right to privacy can be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In the end the reality is that both the individual right to bear arms and the individual right of abortion are based on interpretation of the relevant Amendments in the Constitution. You just want to cherry pick which you agree with .. personally I agree with both decisions.
Just make crappola up. Miss quoting the constitution shows a complete lack of respect for the founding fathers. It shows the author of the statement does not have a ligitimate argument but has to make up statements that aren't even there. Now, you just made up another line of BS. You guys are so far removed. from the truth, why don't you just make up your own language. It sure isn't correct English. To se your own BS, what part of "regulate" don't you understand ?
You can dissent all you wish, you have that Right, however, the States all agree, by passing concealed carry or Constitutional carry, regulation applies to the Militia, The People are another matter, their Right to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed !!!!
Reread my previous post. The right to bear arms is directly stated in the Constitution, abortion is not but is derived from a controversial right to privacy which is in turn derived from the 4th amendment.
Federalist Paper #29, "well regulated" does not mean to control, it means well equipped and prepared and proficient. And it goes into detail in what "training" is - it is not military training but the ability to maintain and use weaponry properly and effectively. You need to leave the political propaganda and read the actual writings of the founders of the nation.
Read my previous post both were decided based on interpretation, though you will never admit that as it shows your hypocrisy.
I find it funny that when faced with an actual compromise on gun control. those who tell the pro-gun side they must compromise refuse to engage.
Government shouldn't be involved in marriage period. Do what Alabama did/does (haven't been following it too closely), have the churches marry at their discretion.
I think in general, people are too all fired getting into other People's business, two women can marry and never touch each other in a sexual manner, so can two men, never have sex, but they can provide for each other and have financial benefits, and health care just like any married couple, yet look out ! The Religious Police will get you ! I think People need to stop worrying about two consenting Adults and what they do or do not do. Let G-d worry about that.
The member BryanVA, who is a seasoned and experienced prosecuting attorney for the state of Virginia, whose profession requires him to be proficient in knowledge of the law, has explained how you are incorrect in your statement. The supreme court held in the US v Miller decision that the second amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia duties, long before Heller ever came up.
Show us precisely where it has been proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, that "well regulated" meant what you claim it means back in the eighteen century at the time of the drafting and ratification of the united states constitution. show us your undeniable proof that only your interpretation is correct, and not that of those who disagree with you.
What part of the Heller Supreme Court ruling do you not understand. The post that Battle3 made is precisely the ruling in the Heller decision. He did not quote the 2A.
The part where he disagrees with it, and because he disagrees with it, it doesn't count for anything.
We already have the Second Amendment, "The Right of The People to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." This was the incorrect statement by DrWho WITH QUOTES. Battle 3 said "it doesn't matter" He is wrong and you are wrong. Quotation marks matter. The original quote by DrWho is not what the constitution says and Battle3 saying "it doesn't matter" is wrong. You guys are just making crappolla up as you go. There ARE two clauses to the second amendment and REGULATION is an integral part of all decsions as it was in the Heller decision as no amendment is absolute. The gun could not be kept in the home unless it was regulated...or did you forget that ? If you guys want to play lawyer, at least do it accurately. You defeat your own points when DRWho lies about the constitution and then the rest try to defend it.
So you disagree with the following statement...... The supreme court has decided that the right to bear arms is an individual right unrelated to the "militia". Yes or no?
So you still beat your wife, yes or no. It doesn't matter what point you are trying to make, it is still subject to regulation. Arms ARE NOT JUST FIREARMS. It is a natural right for self defense, but it is not an unregulated right to use a firearm, whether it is a personal, or "people's" right ALL arms are subject to regulation. It still does not deminish the fact DrWho miss quoted the second amendment. If you quote it correctly then want to argue that it is still a personal right to bear arms, do it. But don't take short cuts and pretend the two clauses do not exist. If you want to argue that a decision has made it a personal right, then you must also add, like many other amendments, they are not absolute and are subject to regulation. You guys always BS that too.
